0i  ftt  Wtdtfat  jr 

(£?  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  *» 


Presented  by  Mr.  Samuel  Agnew  of  Philadelphia,  Pa. 


Agneiv  Coll.  on  Baptism,  No. 


SOB 
A9  23/ 





BAPTISM 


DESIGN,  MODE,  AND   SUBJECTS. 


BY  N.   L.*&ICE,   D.  D., 

PASTOR   OF    THE   SECOND   PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH,  ST.  LOUIS. 


SAINT   LOUIS: 

KEITH    &    WOODS,    88    MARKET    ST 
1855. 


Entered  according  to  A.ct  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1855}  by 

KEITH  &  WOODS, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States,  for  the  District 

of  Missouri. 


KEITH    &   WOODS,    PRINTERS. 
88  Market  street. 


CONTENTS. 


Preface • 7 

DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

Nature  of  True  Religion — Ordinances  Generally — Design 
of  Baptism,  how  learned — Errors  of  Rome  and  Camp- 
bellism — "Born  of  Water" — '-Remission  of  Sins" — 
Prof.  Stuart's  Criticism — Our  Relation  to  the  Church .  .       9 

MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

ELEVEN   LETTERS    TO     ALEXANDER    CAMPBELL. 

Let.  I. — Proposition  to  be  Proved — Points  of  Agree- 
ment— Difference  between  John's  Baptism  and  Christian 
Baptism  —  General  Argument  —  Ground  occupied  by 
Pedo-baptists — Two  Questions 35 

Let.  II. — A  Priori  Argument  Answered — Baptism  not 
an  Action — Unwarranted  Assumption — Facts — Conse- 
cration of  Aaron  and  his  Sons.  etc. — How  much  Immer- 
sionists  must  prove — Original  Meaning  of  Words — 
Carson,  Campbell,  Ernesti,  Stuart — Pagan  Usage  Un- 
certain Guide — Dr.  Campbell 48 

Let.  III. — Meaning  of  Baptizo — Important  Admission — 
Carson,  Gale,  and  Campbell— Lexicons — Rule  for  Ascer- 


4  CONTENTS. 

taming  the  Meaning  of  Words — A.  Campbell — "Word 
Tropical — Blackstoue — Stuart  endorsed  by  Campbell . .     60 

Let.  IV. — Classic  Usage  in  regard  to  Bapto — Homer, 
Aristotle,  and  Aristophanes — Admission  of  Carson,  etc. 
Bible  Usage — Baptism  in  Dew — Rev.,  19  :  3 — Syriac 
and  JEtkiopic  Versions — Latin  Vulgate — Origen 74 

Let.  V. — Classic  usage  respecting  Baptizo — Strabo,  Hip- 
pocrates, etc. — Gale's  Admission — Bible  Usage — Apoc- 
ryphal Books  —  Campbell's  Translation  of  Mark,  7: 
3,  4 — Divers  Baptisms 84 

Let.  VI — Translations — Syriac,  Arabic,  JEthiopic,  etc. . .     99 

Let.  VII. — Early  Christian  Writers,  Greek  and  Latin — 
Origen — Baptism  of  the  Altar — Touring  in  cases  of 
necessity 107 

Let.  VHI. — Scripture  accounts  of  administration  of  Bap- 
tism— How  John  baptize  1 — Professor  Stuart's  criticism 
on  poll 'a  hudata — Examples  of  Christian  Baptism — Pen- 
tecost— Paul's  Baptism — Cornelius — Eunuch 114 

Let.  IX. — 1 'repositions — Opinion  of  the  Ancients — Prof. 
Stuart's  Criticism— Dr.  Dick— Dr.  Scott 126 

Let.  X. — Examination  of  Romans,  6  :  1-4 — Mr.  Camp- 
bell's argument  from  legal  sprinklings — Personal  Im- 
mersions not  in  the  Law  of  Moses Sprinklings  com- 
manded— Holy  Spirit  poured  out 134 

Let.  XI. — Argument  from  Convertible  Terms  considered — 
Baptism  of  the  Spirit  and  Water — Conclusions 143 

INFANT  BAPTISM. 

Chap.  I. — Its  importance — Mr.  Pendleton's  extreme  posi- 
tion— Presumptive  argument — How  the  majority  of  wise 


CONTEXTS.  5 

and  good  men  have  understood  the  Scriptures — God  has 
owned  Pedo-baptist  Churches — Baptist  Divisions 159 

Chap.  II. — Commission  to  Apostles — Real  points  of  dis- 
cussion— Definition  of  a  Church — Identity,  in  what  it 
consists  —  Points  of  difference  —  Same  religion  —  Mr. 
Campbell's  argument  on  "Jews'  Religion"  —  Three 
points  in  Religion — Jewish  church  not  secular  organi- 
zation— -Differences  between  Church  and  State — Abra- 
ham and  ( 'hristian  Church — Good  olive  tree — Christian 
church  not  a  new  church — Apostles  not  baptized — 
Objections — Campbell  and  Carson 168 

Chap.  III. — Baptism  in  place  of  Circumcision  —  Mr. 
Campbell's  sixteen   arguments 213 

Chap.  IV. — Onus  proband!  on  antj-pedo-baptists — Apos- 
tolic Commission  examined — Law  of  membership  not 
changed — Positive  proof — Luke,  18:  15,  1(6 — 1  Cor., 
7  :  14— Household  Baptisms 227 

Chap.  V. — Historical  argument — When  Infant  Baptism 
began — Language  of  Irenaeus — Tertullian  opposed  to 
Infant  Baptism — Value  of  his  testimony — Origcn — Cy- 
prian and  the  Council — Augustine,  Jerome,  and  Pela- 
gius — Infant    Communion 257 

Chap.  VI. — Waldenses  Pedo-baptists— They  are  Pedo- 
baptists  now — Were  so  at  the  Reformation — Testimony 
of  Jones — Of  Papists — Luther's  endorsement  of  their 
Confessions — Declaration  in  1608 — In  1535 — 156S — 
Testimony  of  Messengers  of  Louis  XII — Jones'  cor- 
ruption of  Perrin — "Waldenses  condemned  superstitious 
additions  to  Infant  Baptism,  but  not  baptism  itself — 
Book  of  Anti-christ,  A.  D.  1120 — Testimony  of  ene- 

t  mies — Conclusions  of  Dr.  Wall — Value  of  the  histor- 
ical argument 286 


6  CONTENTS. 

Chap.  YIL — Practical  uses  of  Infant  Baptism — Its  in- 
fluence on  parents — On  children — On  the  church — Ap- 
plication     301 


PREFACE, 


The  baptismal  controversy  is  one  of  long  standing.  That 
much  that  is  new  can  be  said  upon  it,  is  not  to  be  expected. 
Yet,  as  the  exclusive  claims  of  anti-pedo-baptists  are  still 
urged  with  as  great  zeal  as  ever,  and  as  older  boohs  are  gradu- 
ally disappearing,  it  is  necessary  that  others  be  published,  adapted 
to  the  ever-varying  phases  of  error.  The  following  work  has 
been  prepared,  and,  is  now  published,  in  compliance  with  prom- 
ises made  to  ministers  and  laymen,  in  different  parts  of  the  coun- 
try, for  some  years  past.  Having  paid  much  attention  to  the 
subjects  discussed,  I  have  thought  the  views  here  presented,  may 
contribute  to  the  advancement  of  truth.  The  mode  of  discus- 
sing the  different  points,  which  I  have  adopted,  may  possibly 
strike  some  minds,  as  calculated  to  present  them  in  a  clear 
light. 

The  letters  addressed  to  Alexander  Campbell,  on  the  Mode 
of  Baptism,  were  published  in  the  Presbyterian  of  the  West, 
several  years  ago,  on  the  appearance  of  his  book  on  Baptism. 
Mr.  Campbell,  at  that  time,  desired  to  reply  to  them  through 
the  columns  of  the  same  paper ;  but  as  his  propositions  were 
regarded  as  entirely  unfair,  they  were  promptly  declined.   These 


8  PEEFACE. 

letters,  with  the  notes  appended,  it  is  hoped,  will  prove  a 
satisfactory  defence  of  Baptism  by  pouring  or  sprinkling. 

I  have  not  attempted  to  say  all  that  might  he  said  on  the 
subjects  discussed.  Yet  I  have  not  left  unanswered  any  argu- 
ment against  our  views,  which  seems  to  deserve  refutation. 
It  has  been  my  object  to  give  a  brief,  clear,  and  satisfactory 
discussion  of  each  point,  and  to  aid  Christians  in  the  discharge 
of  the  duties  and  in  the  improvement  of  the  privileges  con- 
nected with  the  ordinance  of  Baptism.  How  far  I  have 
succeeded,  I  cheerfully  leave  each  reader  to  determine  for 
himself.  My  prayer  is,  that  God  will  bless  it  to  the  edifica- 
tion of  his  people. 

The  Author. 


DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 


I.  True  religion  is  holiness  of  heart,  manifested 
in  obedience  to  the  commands  of  God ;  or,  in  other 
words,  it  is  love  supreme  to  God  and  love  to  men, 
manifested  in  the  discharge  of  our  duties  to  God  and 
to  men.  "  Love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law."  This 
love,  in  a  regenerated  soul*  begets  repentance  for 
past  sins,  a  heartfelt  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  our 
Saviour  from  sin,  and  obedience  to  all  the  com- 
mandments of  God.  Peter  could  say,  "Lord, 
thou  knowest  all  things  ;  thou  knowest  that  I  love 
thee;"  and,  therefore,  when  reminded  of  his  sin, 
"he  went  out  and  wept  bitterly."  True  faith 
"worketh  by  love;"  and  such  a  faith  produces 
corresponding  works.  "  Faith  without  works  is 
dead."     Such,  briefly,  is  true  religion. 

II.  The  efficient  agent  in  begetting  and  perfecting 
true  religion  in  the  hearts  and  lives  of  men,  is  the 
Holy  Spirit ;  and  the  principal  means  employed  in 
'this  work  are  the  word  and  the  ordinances  of  the 
Gospel.  "Of  his  own  will,"  says  James,  "begat 
he  us  with  his  word  of  truth."  God  begat  us  ;  but 
he  did  it  by  means  of  his  word. 

2 


10  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM, 

Ever  since  God  has  had  a  people  in  the  world,  he 
has  not  only  made  to  them  revelations  of  his  will? 
but  has  appointed  ordinances  for  their  observance, 
' 6  By  faith  Abel  offered  unto  God  a  more  excellent 
sacrifice  than  Cain ;"  and  that  sacrifice,  which  could 
sot  have  been  offered  by  faith  unless  Divinely  ap- 
pointed, consisted  "of  the  firstlings  of  his  flock, 
and  of  the  fat  thereof."  So  far  as  the  Scriptures 
inform  us,  there  were  no  ordinances,  except  bloody 
sacrifices,  and  perhaps  thank-offerings,  instituted, 
until  the  calling  of  Abraham.  Then  circumcision 
was  instituted,  "a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith/" 
a  seal  of  the  covenant  between  God  and  his  people. 
At  Mount  Sinai,  many  more  ordinances  were  ap- 
pointed, chiefly  of  two  classes — bloodv  sacrifices  and 
ablutions.  At  the  close  of  the  Old  Dispensation, 
the  burdensome  ritual  of  the  Jewish  church  gave 
place  to  two  simple,  significant  ordinances — the 
Lord^s  Supper  and  Baptism. 

III.  Ordinances,  though  the  observance  of  them 
as  Divinely  appointed,  is  important  and  obligatory 
as  mean5  of  grace,  were  never  designed  to  be  effi- 
cacious in  imparting  saving  grace,  or,  under  all 
circumstances,  essential  to  salvation.  He  who,  hav- 
ing the  opportunity,  refuses  to  observe  ordinances 
appointed  of  God,  gives  clear  evidence  that  he  has 
no  piety,  and  cannot  therefore  be  saved ;  and  he  who 
relies  for  salvation  upon  the  observance  of  ordi- 
nances,   mistakes    the   shadow   for    the    substance. 


DESIGN  OF   BAPTISM,  U 

Under  the  Old  Dispensation.,  it  was  the  duty  of  pious 
men  to  offer  sacrifices  ;  but  Samuel  said  to  Saul : 
"  Behold,  to  obey  is  better  than  sacrifice,  and  to 
hearken  than  the  fat  of  rams."  *  And  David  said, 
"For  thou  desirest  not  sacrifice;  else  would  I  give 
it ;  thou  delightest  not  in  burnt- offering.  The 
sacrifices  of  God  are  a  broken  spirit :  a  broken  and 
a  contrite  heart,  0  God,  thou  wilt  not  despise. ??f 
And  so  far  was  circumcision  from  beino;  regarded  as 
essential  to  salvation,  that  for  forty  years,  during 
the  sojourn  of  the  Jews  in  the  wilderness,  it  was 
omitted,  t  It  was  "the  duty  of  the  Jews  to  tithe 
mint,  anise  and  cumin ;  but  judgment,  mercy  and 
faith  were  "  the  weightier  matters  of  the  law.'5 

In  every  age  there  has  been  a  strong  tendency  in 
men  to  attribute  to  ordinances  an  efficacy  and  an 
importance  they  never  possessed,  and,  consequently, 
to  depend  upon  them  for  salvation  to  the  neglect  of 
vital  godliness  and  good  works.  In  this  respect, 
multitudes  of  professing  Christians  have  erred  as 
egregiously  as  did  the  Jews.  It  has  been  too  com- 
mon to  see  them  neglectful  of  sound  morals,  just  in 
proportion  to  their  zeal  for  outward  observances. 
The  church  of  Rome  presents  a  striking  confirmation 
of  this  statement. 

Yet  we  may  run  to  the  other  extreme,  and  under- 
value ordinances.     The  fact  that  God  has  appointed 

*  1  Sam.  15 :  22.      f  Ps.  51 :  16;  17.     $  Josh.  5 :  5. 


12  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

them,  is  sufficient  evidence  that  his  blessing  will 
attend  the  proper  observance  of  them,  and  that 
those  who  willfully  neglect  them  forfeit  that  blessing. 
We  are  under  obligation  to  observe  them,  because 
God  commands  it ;  and  we  need  them,  because  they 
impress  truth  on  our  minds,  impart  a  stronger  sense 
of  our  obligations,  and  encourage  us  in  the  midst 
of  trials  and  temptations. 

On  this  general  subject,  the  following  three  truths 
are  clear  and  most  important : 

1.  The  mere  observance  of  ordinances  will  never 
save  a  sinner.  They  are  in  their  nature  material, 
and  touch  only  the  body ;  but  true  religion  belongs 
to  the  mind,  and  is  seated  in  the  heart.  So  far, 
then,  as  ordinances  impress  truth  on  the  heart,  and 
so  far  as  that  truth  is  attended  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
they  become  means  of  growth  in  holiness.  "  Sanc- 
tify them  through  thy  truth." 

2.  No  one  ever  was  or  will  be  lost  for  lack  of  or- 
dinances, which  he  had  not  the  opportunity  to  observe. 
That  is  a  glorious  truth  announced  by  Peter,  when 
he  saw  that  God  had  accepted  Cornelius  the  centu- 
rion:  "  Then  Peter  opened  his  mouth  and  said, 
Of  a  truth,  I  perceive  that  God  is  no  respecter 
of  persons  ;  but  in  every  nation  he  that  feareth  him, 
and  worketh  righteousness,  is  accepted  of  him."* 
Cornelius  was  "  a  devout  man,  and  one  that  feared 

*  Acta  10 :  34,  35. 


DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  13 

God  with  all  his  house,  which  gave  much  alms  to  the 
people,  and  prayed  to  God  always  ; "  and  his  purity 
of:  heart  and  exemplary  life  were  as  truly  acceptable 
to  God  before  his  baptism,  as  afterwards. 

3.  No  one  who  willfully  neglects  ordinances  di- 
vinely appointed,  can  rationally  hope  for  salvation ; 
for  such  persons  openly  rebel  against  God,  and  treat 
with  contempt  his  wisdom  and  his  grace.  True  piety 
prompts  us  cheerfully  to  obey  every  command  of  God, 
and  to  prize  and  improve  every  means  of  grace  he 
has  appointed.  Its  language  is:  "Therefore,  I 
esteem  all  thy  precepts  concerning  all  things  to  be 
right ;  and  I  hate  every  false  way."  * 

With  these  general  remarks,  I  proceed  to  a  careful 
examination  of  the  design,  the  mode,  and  the  sub- 
jects of  baptism. 

We  place  the  design  of  baptism  first  in  the  order 
of  discussion,  for  two  reasons.  In  the  first  place, 
the  value  of  the  ordinance  is  in  its  design — the  end 
or  ends  it  is  intended  to  accomplish  in  the  plan  of 
salvation.  Mistakes  on  this  point  may  render  the 
ordinance  worthless  or  injurious ;  for  instead  of  im- 
pressing truth  on  the  mind,  it  may  thus  mislead  it. 
For  example,  he  who  regards  baptism  as  a  regenera- 
ting ordinance,  will  think  himself  regenerated,  be- 
cause he  has  been  baptized ;  and  he  who  regards  it  as 
securing  remission  of  sins,  will  imagine  himself  par- 


*  Ps.  119:  128. 
2* 


14  MSIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

cloned,  for  the  same  reason.  In  the  second  place,  a 
knowledge  of  the  meaning  and  design  of  baptism 
will  aid  us  in  determining  the  mode  and  the  subjects. 
Those  who  insist  on  immersion,  and  reject  infant  bap- 
tism, differ  from  Pedo -baptists  as  much,  or  nearly 
so,  as  to  the  design  of  the  ordinance. 
The  design  of  baptism  may  be  learned — 
I.  From  the  name  into  which  we  are  baptized. 
The  apostolic  commission  says:  "  Baptizing  them 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost."  *  The  preposition  here  translated 
in  is  eis,  which  many  prefer,  and  perhaps  correctly, 
to  render  into.  The  same  preposition  is  used  in 
1  Cor.  10 :  2,  where  the  Jews  are  said  to  have  been 
6 'baptized  unto  {into')  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in 
the  sea."  To  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
etc. ,  says  an  eminent  writer,  is  to  be  consecrated  to 
him  for  worship,  so  that  the  baptized  person  is  called 
after  him  as  his  Lord.  To  be  baptized  into  any  one, 
or  in  the  name  of  any  one,  says  the  learned  Poole, 
is  to  subject  and  devote  one's  self  to  him,  and  to  be 
willing  to  be  called  by  his  name.  Dr.  Gill,  the 
Baptist  commentator,  explains  the  expression  to 
mean  "  by  the  authority  of  three  divine  per- 
sons" and  adds  :  "  And  as  they  are  to  be  invocated 
in  it,  so  the  persons  baptized  not  only  profess  faith 
in  each  divine  person,  but  are  devoted  to  their  service 

*  Matt.  28 :  19. 


DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  15 

and  worship,  and  are  laid  under  obligation  to  obe- 
dience to  them."  The  late  Professor  Stuart  says, 
the  word  baptize,  "  when  it  is  followed  by  a  person, 
means,  by  the  sacred  rite  of  baptism,  to  bind  one's 
self  to  be  a  disciple  or  follower  of  a  person,  to  re- 
ceive or  obey  his  doctrines  or  laws.'' 

We  may,  then,  safely  conclude,  that  baptism  sig- 
nifies consecration  to  the  service  of  God  in  the 
Gosjjel  of  Christ.  It  is  to  be  administered  to  those 
who  are  separated  from  the  world  for  that  service. 
In  receiving  this  ordinance,  they  covenant  to  be 
faithful  in  it,  and  express  their  faith  in  the  divine 
promises,  without  which  they  cannot  serve  God  ac- 
ceptably. This  is  all  we  mean,  when  we  say,  baptism 
is  a  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace.  God  says  to 
sinners:  "  Incline  your  ear,  and  come  unto  me: 
hear,  and  your  soul  shall  live;  and  I  will  make  an 
everlasting  covenant  with  you,  even  the  sure  mercies 
of  David."  *  Those  who  accept  this  invitation,  re- 
ceive baptism,  thus  accepting  the  terms  of  the  cove- 
nant. Whether  believing  parents  are  authorized  and 
required  to  enter  into  covenant  for  their  infant  chil- 
dren, and  have  them  baptized,  will  be  subject  of 
inquiry  in  another  part  of  this  work. 

II.  The  design  of  baptism  may  be  learned,  second- 
ly, from  the  element  used  in  the  administration. 
It  is  water.     No  other  fluid  was  ever  used  by  the 

*  Isaiah  55  :  3. 


16  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

apostles.  And  as  water  cleanses  the  body,  so  it  is  a 
suitable  emblem  of  spiritual  cleansing.  Under  both 
the  Old  and  the  New  Dispensation,  it  was  so  used. 
Thus,  God  said  to  the  Jews :  "  Then  will  I  sprinkle 
clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean  ;  from 
all  your  filthiness  and  from  all  your  idols,  will  I 
cleanse  you.  A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and 
a  new  spirit  will  I  put  within  you,"  etc.*  So  Paul 
said  to  the  believing  Corinthians:  "  And  such  were 
some  of  you:  but  ye  are  washed,"  etc.f  And 
Ananias  had  said  to  him  "  Arise,  and  be  baptized, 
and  wash  away  thy  sins,"  etc. J  God  is  holy;  his 
service  is  a  holy  service ;  and,  therefore,  it  is  spe- 
cially proper  that  the  element  by  which  those  who 
have  been  sinners,  are  consecrated  to  that  service, 
should  be  significant  of  purity.  Dr.  Carson,  the 
Baptist  controvertist,  agrees  with  us,  that  "washing 
away  sin  is  the  thing  which  it  always  signifies," 
though  he  says  this  is  not  the  whole  of  its  meaning. § 
Dr.  Gill  says,  the  grace  of  the  Spirit  in  regeneration, 
' 'both  in  the  Old  and  in  the  New  Testament,  is 
frequently  signified  by  water,  and  called  a  baptism, 
or  a  being  baptized."  || 

Baptism,  then,  seals  our  consecration  to  the  ser- 
vice of  God  in  the  Gospel,  and  signifies  that  holiness 
by  which  only  we  can  render  acceptable  service. 


*  Ezekiel  36 :  25,  26.     f  1  Cor.  6:11.     %  Acts  22 :  16.    §  On 
Bap.   p.   266.     ||    Com.  on  1  Cor    12 :  15. 


DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  17 

III.  But  inasmuch  as  holiness  is  obtained  only  by 
the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  heart,  bap- 
tism points  to  the  Spirit's  work.  Therefore,  the 
two  things — the  sign  and  the  substance — are  con- 
stantly connected  in  the  Scriptures.  Accordingly 
Paul  teaches,  that  God  saves  us  "  by  the  washing 
of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
which  he  shed  on  us  abundantly  through  Jesus 
Christ."*  For  this  reason,  regeneration  itself  is 
called  baptism.  John  the  Baptist  said:  "  I  indeed 
baptize  you  with  water  unto  repentance  :  but  he  that 
cometh  after  me  is  mightier  than  I,  whose  shoes  I  am 
not  worthy  to  bear  :  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire."  f  For  though  the  bap- 
tism on  John  was  only  a  ceremony  introductory  to 
the  Christian  Dispensation,  and  not  Christian  bap- 
tism, it  had  the  same  significance,  as  indeed  all  the 
Jewish  ablutions  had.  Paul  says:  "For  by  one 
Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body,  whether  we 
be  Jews  or  Gentiles,  whether  we  be  bond  or  free  ; 
and  have  been  all  made  to  drink  into  one  spirit."  J 
The  union  of  believers  to  Christ  is  effected,  not  by 
water,  but  by  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  Dr. 
Gill  says:  "By  which  spiritual  baptism,  or  by 
whose  grace  in  regeneration  and  conversion,  they 
are  brought  into  one  body ;  the  mystical  body  of 
Christ,  the  universal  and  invisible  church."  Strange- 

*  Tit.  3 :  5,  6.     f  Matt.  3:  11.    %  1  Cor.  12 :  13. 


18  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

ly  enough,  some  Baptists,  in  the  heat  of  controversy, 
have  convinced  themselves  that  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  was  confined  to  his  miraculous  gifts,  and 
has  long  since  ceased.  The  passage  under  consi- 
deration is  a  clear  refutation  of  this  notion. 

Here,  again,  men  have  run  into  fatal  error,  mis- 
taking the  shadow  for  the  substance — the  outward 
sign  for  the  inward  grace.  This  is  true  of  the 
church  of  Rome.  The  Catechism  of  the  Council  of 
Trent  defines  baptism  as  i '  the  sacrament  of  regene- 
ration by  water  in  the  word."  It  tells  us,  that  our 
Lord,  when  baptized  by  John,  "  gave  to  the  water 
the  power  of  sanctifying"  — "  the  power  of  re- 
generating to  spiritual  life."  It  further  declares, 
"that  such  is  the  admirable  efficacy  of  this  sacra- 
ment, as  to  remit  original  sin,  and  actual  guilt 
however  enormous  ; "  and  that  those  regenerated  by 
baptism  "  become  innocent,  spotless,  innoxious,  and 
beloved  of  God."  *  Very  nearly  the  same  efficacy 
is  ascribed  to  this  ordinance  by  High- church  Episco- 
palians. The  erroneousness  of  this  doctrine  is  clear 
from  the  following  considerations  : 

1.  It  is  chargeable  with  the  gross  absurdity  of 
ascribing  the  production  of  holiness  in  the  mind  to  a 
material  agent  applied  to  the  body. 

2.  It  is  contrary  to  the  uniform  teaching  of  the 
Bible,  which  represents  regeneration  as  the  work  of 

*  pp.  114,  116, 127. 


design  ;?  bapti^v  19 

tlie  Holy  Spirit  on  :im  hmm.  -An -I  7:1  iifi  V 
quickened,  who  were  r:  .  in  ::*m  times  11  r.ns 
' 4  Even  when  we  were  dead  m  sins?  hath  quickened  us 
together  with  Christ  "  *  It  -m  :m  In:::  ::  me  :n- 
spired  writers  to  connect  the  significant  ordinance 
with  the  thin ^  ::::n::  mi  nn  :n:  ~:=t  mm - 
neously  eonclnded,  that  the  former  is  essential  to  the 
latter.     Thus,  when  onr  Lord  said  to  Niebc  "mim  : 

••  Vmiim  -rr:>.  I  = :m:    :iim.  Iimm   i  mm  ":e 

horn  of  ~mm  :m:i  ::  :m  mmm  it  :~im:  mm: 
into  the  Kingdom  ::  m  i  ."  ::  is  ismmmi  :'.:  :  me 
water  refers  to  baptism,  and  that  it  is  a  regenerating 
ordinance.  2~  ~.  11:  1  :  mie  i;r:i:i::  In 
the  first  place,  it  is  assumed  that  ::  me  n:rn  ::  — m 
is  :•:  '  :  \: :  "  "_m  mimme  ::  mere  m  :ms  : 
When  mm  ;::rir"::::  :  mmm  '  '  :":n  :ir  vm:ur 
and  Mehodemos,  Christian,  bar  hnm  ha  1  1 : :  been  in- 
stituted :  and  if  he  referred  to  it,  Mehodemas  coold 
not  possibly  hare  understood  him.  Yet  the  Sam  1  m 
censured  him  for  his  ignorance:  "  Art  thou  1  mm- 
ter  of  Israel,  and  knowestnot  these  things  tn  Be- 
sides, in  no  other  instance  in  which  the  new  bkth  is 
spoken  of  in  the  Xew  Testament,  is  wider  men- 
tioned. The  simple  truth  seems  to  be7  that  Jesus 
Christ  was  explaining  to  a  Jewish  te  1  ii  the  if  bcs- 
sity  and  the  nature  of  the  newbirm  :  :m  I  he  flhs- 
trated   it,    as    the    iismiiei   -writers     mien    i:.     :y 

*  I:i.    :     1  :. 


20  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

reference  to  water,  the  emblem  of  spiritual  purity.  To 
be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  is  to  experience 
that  renewal  of  heart  which  is  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit, 
and  of  which  water  is  the  appropriate  emblem-. 

But  suppose  the  reference  in  this  passage  Were  to 
the  ordinance  of  baptism,  what  reason  is  there  to 
suppose  that  persons  are  regenerated  always  and  only 
in  connection  with  baptism?  The  fact,  that  an  out- 
ward ordinance  stands  associated  with  the  inward 
grace,  does  not  prove  that  both  are  equally  neces^ 
sary,  or  that  they  are  always,  in  fact,  connected. 

8.  The  doctrine  I  am  opposing  is  liable  to  the 
very  serious  objection,  that  it  makes  the  salvation  of 
the  soul  depend,  in  many  instances,  upon  mere  cir* 
cumstances,  or  upon  the  faithfulness  of  other  per^ 
sons.  A  dying  infant  must  perish,  only  because  its 
parents  neglect  to  have  it  baptized,  or  because  it  is  left 
to  the  care  of  strangers  Who  care  not  for  its  soul,  or  do 
not  believe  in  the  baptism  of  infants.  "Infants," 
says  the  Catechism  of  Trent,  "unless  baptized, 
cannot  enter  heaven,  and  hence  we  may  well  conceive 
how  deep  the  enormity  of  their  guilt,  who,  through 
negligence,  suffer  them  to  remain  without  the  grace 
of  the  sacrament,  longer  than  necessity  may  require, 
particularly  at  an  age  so  tender  as  to  be  exposed  to 
numberless  causes  of  death."  To  avoid,  as  far  as 
possible,  this  difficulty,  Rome  allows  "  even  the  laity, 
men  and  women,  to  whatsoever  sect  they  may  be- 
long," and  even  "  Jews,  infidels,  and  heretics,"  to 


DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  21 

administer  the  ordinance,  "  provided,  however,  they 
intend  to  do  what  the  Catholic  church  does  in  that 
act  of  her  ministry."  *  The  very  fact,  that  a  license 
so  general  and  so  unscriptural  is  given  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  baptism,  is  sufficient  proof  of  the 
falsity  of  the  doctrine  which  made  it  necessary. 

But  not  infants  only  suffer,  if  this  doctrine  be 
true ;  for  adults  are  very  often  placed  in  circum- 
stances in  which,  however  truly  penitent  and  believ- 
ing, they  cannot  receive  baptism.  Those  dying  in 
such  circumstances  must,  of  course,  be  lost.  Yet 
our  Saviour  says:  "  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son 
hath  everlasting  life."  f 

No,  baptism  signifies  regeneration ;  but  it  does 
not  regenerate.  It  impresses  on  us  the  necessity  of 
sanctification  ;  but  it  does  not  sanctify.  It  is  the 
shadow ;  the  Spirit's  agency  on  the  heart  is  the  sub- 
stance. The  two  stand  associated  in  the  Bible,  as  a 
man  and  his  shadow. 

4.  But  since  sinners  can  approach  God  only 
through  the  mediation  of  Christ,  and  since  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  given  through  his  intercession,  and  his  me- 
diation is  bused  upon  his  death;  baptism  visibly  iden- 
tifies us  with  Christ,  and  especially  with  his  death. 
We  are,  therefore,  said  to  be  "  baptized  into  Christ," 
and  thus  to  "  put  on  Christ;"  and  also  to  be 
"  baptized  into  his  death."     As  Christ  died  to  de- 


*  Cat.  of  Trent,  pp.  124, 140.     1 1  John  3  :  36, 

3 


22  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

liver  his  people  both  from  the  condemnation  and  the 
dominion  of  sin,  baptism  into  Christ  signifies  and 
requires  death  to  sin  and  a  life  of  holiness,  or  sanc- 
tification  through  him ;  and  it  stands  intimately  asso- 
ciated "with  remission  of  sins. 

Here,  again,  human  nature  has  exhibited  its  char- 
acteristic infirmity ;  for  some  who  are  not  chargeable 
with  the  absurdity  of  ascribing  to  baptism  a  sancti- 
fying efficacy,  hold  that  it  is  a  justifying  ordinance, 
This  is  the  doctrine  of  Alexander  Campbell  and  the 
sect  to  which  he  has  given  rise.  He  says  :  "  From 
the  time  the  proclamation  of  God's  philanthropy  was 
first  made,  there  was  an  act  of  obedience  proposed 
in  it,  by  which  the  believers  of  the  proclamation  were 
put  in  actual  possession  of  its  blessings,  and  by 
conformity  to  which  act  a  change  of  state  ensued. 
*  *  *  Whatever  the  act  of  faith  may  be,  it  ne- 
cessarily becomes  the  line  of  discrimination  between 
the  two  states  before  described.  On  this  side,  and 
on  that,  mankind  are  in  quite  different  states.  On 
the  one  side,  they  are  pardoned,  justified,  sanctified, 
reconciled,  adopted,  and  saved;  on  the  other,  they 
are  in  a  state  of  condemnation.  This  act  is  some- 
times called  immersion,  regeneration,  conversion."* 

There  are  two  principal  grounds  on  which  this  doc- 
trine is  defended : 

1st.  The  language  of  Christ  to  Nichodemus  is  ap- 

*  Chris.  Sys.  pp.  200,  201. 


DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  23 

pealed  to:  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  Except 
a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  The  new  birth, 
according  to  Mr.  Campbell,  is  not  a  change  of  heart , 
as  commentators  have  generally  supposed,  but  a 
change  of  state — a  passing  from  a  state  of  con- 
demnation to  a  state  of  justification.  But  as  we 
have  already  shown,  there  is  no  evidence  that  this 
passage  has  any  direct  reference  to  baptism.  Besides, 
if  it  had,  it  would  not  sustain  the  doctrine  of  Mr. 
Campbell ;  for  the  new  birth  is  most  evidently  a 
change  of  heart  from  sinfulness  to  holiness — not  a 
change  of  state.  This  is  clear,  first,  from  the 
reason  assigned,  why  the  new  birth  is  necessary, 
viz  :  "  That  which  is  bom  of  the  flesh,  is  flesh ;  and 
that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit,  is  spirit."  The 
word  flesh,  as  contrasted  with  spirit,  in  the  New 
Testament,  signifies  depravity,  as  is  evident  from 
Rom.  8  :  1-9,  and  Gallatians  5  :  19-25.  The  works 
of  the  flesh  are  only  evil,  the  works  of  the  Spirit 
are  good.  The  Saviour,  then,  teaches  that  men 
must  be  born  again,  because  being  born  of  depraved 
parents,  they  are  themselves  depraved.  Being  born 
of  the  Spirit,  makes  them  like  the  Spirit,  holy. 
That  the  new  birth  is  a  change  of  heart,  is  further 
proved  by  its  fruits.  "  Whosoever  is  born  of  God," 
says  John  the  Apostle,  M  doth  not  commit  sin ;  for 
his  seed  remameth  ia  him ;  ami  he  cannot  sin ,  be- 


24  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM, 

cause  he  is  born  of  God."  *  The  new  birth  leads 
men  to  turn  from  sin,  and  work  righteousness  ;  most 
evidently,  therefore,  it  is  a  change  of  heart.  But 
we  observe,  that  in  his  late  book  on  baptism,  Mr. 
Campbell  seems  entirely  to  abandon  this  passage  on 
which  he  had  so  much  relied. 

2d.  The  second  ground  on  which  the  doctrine  of 
baptismal  justification  is  defended,  is  the  force  of 
the  Greek  preposition,  eis.  Peter  said  to  the  anxious 
inquirers,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  "  Repent  and 
be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ,  for  {eis)  the  remission  of  sins."  The  word  eis, 
here  translated  for,  as  Mr.  Campbell  insists,  means 
in  order  to  ;  and,  therefore,  Peter  commanded  men 
to  be  baptized  in  order  that  their  sins  might  be 
remitted.  In  his  Christian  System,  he  says : 
"  Immersion  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  was  the 
command  addressed  to  these  believers,  to  these  pen- 
itents, in  answer  to  the  most  earnest  question,  and 
by  one  of  the  most  sincere,  candid,  and  honest 
speakers  ever  heard.  This  act  of  faith  was  presented 
as  that  act  by  which  a  change  in  their  state  could  be 
effected ;  or,  in  other  words,  by  which  alone  they 
could  be  pardoned."  f  In  his  late  book  on  baptism, 
he  says :  ' '  The  form  of  expression  is  exceedingly 
familiar  and  intelligible;  and,  were  it  not  for  the 
imaginary  incongruity  between  the  means  and  the 

*  1  John,  3:9.    f  p.  203. 


DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  25 

end,  or  the  thing  done  and  the  alleged  purpose  or 
result,  no  one  could,  for  a  moment,  doubt  that  the 
design  of  baptism  is  '  for  the  remission  of  sins.' >'  * 
But  there  are  two  very  conclusive  objections  to  this 
argument,  viz : 

The  first  is,  that  men  are  not  commanded  to  be 
baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins.  There  is  no 
such  command  in  the  New  Testament.  Wherever 
baptism  is  mentioned  in  connection  with  remission, 
repentance  is  also  mentioned.  Thus,  John  the 
Baptist  did  not  preach  baptism  for  the  remission  of 
sins,  but  "  the  baptism  of  repentance  for  the  re- 
mission of  sins."  f  Peter  did  not  command  the 
anxious  inquirers,  on  the  <lay  of  Pentecost,  to  be 
baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins,  but  to  "  repent 
acd  be  baptized,"  etc.  Now,  the  question  arises, 
whether  it  is  repentance  or  baptism  that  secures  re- 
mission, or  whether  both  are  equally  necessary.  This 
question  is  answered  by  two  important  facts,  viz  : 

1st.  In  no  part  of  the  New  Testament  is  baptism 
alone  connected  with  remission  of  sins. 

2d.  Remission  of  sins  is  promised  both  to  repent- 
ance and  faith,  without  reference  to  baptism.  After 
his  resurrection,  Christ  said  to  his  disciples  :  "  Thus 
it  is  written,  and  thus  it  behoved  Christ  to  suffer, 
and  to  rise  from  the  dead  the  third  day ;  and  that  re- 
pentance and  remission  of  sins  should  be  preached  in 


*  p.  249.     f  Mark,  1:4;  Luke,  3 :  3. 

3* 


26  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

his  name  among  all  nations."  *  Peter  said :  "  Him 
hath  God  exalted  with  his  right  hand  to  be  a  Prince 
and  a  Saviour,  for  to  give  repentance  to  Israel,  and 
remission  of  sins."  Again,  "  Repent  ye  therefore, 
and  be  converted,  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted 
out,"  etc.  And  when  Peter  narrated  to  the  apostles 
and  brethren  at  Jerusalem,  the  conversion  of  Cor- 
nelius and  his  family,  "  They  held  their  peace,  and 
glorified  God,  saying,  Then  hath  God  also  to  the 
Gentiles  granted  repentance  unto  life."  f  These 
passages  and  others,  evidently  promise  to  all  true 
penitents  the  remission  of  sins.  Other  passages  pro- 
mise remission  to  faith,  "  He  that  believeth  on 
him  is  not  condemned ; "  and  again,  "He  that  be- 
lieveth on  the  Son  hath  everlasting  life."  J  And  to 
the  trembling  jailor,  Paul  said :  "  Believe  on  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved."  §  More- 
over, in  the  epistle  to  the  Romans,  he  discusses  at 
length  the  doctrine  of  justification,  and  his  conclu- 
sion is  stated  thus  :  "  Therefore,  we  conclude  that  a 
man  is  justified  by  faith  without  the  deeds  of  the 
law;"  and  again,  "  Therefore,  being  justified  by 
faith,  we  have  peace  with  God  through  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ."  ||  These  and  many  similar  passages 
teach,  unequivocally,  that  every  true  believer,  bap- 
tized or  not,  is  justified.     Inasmuch  as  repentance, 


*  Luke,  24:  46,  47.     f  Acts,  3 :  19 ;  and  5 :  31  j  and  11 :  18. 
%  John,  3 :  18,  36.    §  Acts,  16  :  31.    ||  ^om.3  3  :  28  5  and  5  :  1. 


DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  27 

faith  and  conversion  are  always  associated  in  the 
same  mind,  remission  of  sins  is  promised  sometimes 
to  repentance,  sometimes  to  faith,  sometimes  to  con- 
version. If  there  be,  then,  any  penitent,  any  be- 
liever, who  is  not  justified,  the  passages  just  cited 
would  not  be  true.  But,  confessedly,  there  are  mul- 
titudes of  true  pentents,  of  true  believers,  who  have 
not  been  baptized  ;  nay,  many  such,  there  is  reason 
to  believe,  have  died  unbaptized,  certainly  unim- 
merscd.  Most  evidently,  then,  it  is  repentance,  and 
not  baptism,  which  secures  remission ;  and  baptism 
is  connected  with  repentance  and  remission,  only  as 
the  sign  and  seal  is  connected  with  the  thing  sealed 
or  signified.* 

But  let  us  admit  that  the  preposition  eis  stands 
immediately  connected  with  baptism ;  the  question 
then  arises,  what  does  it  mean?  That  it  sometimes 
signifies  in  order  to,  is  not  denied ;  but  that  it  quite 
as  frequently  has  other  meanings,  is  certain.  Let 
us,  then,  compare  Acts,  2:  38,  and  Matt.,  3:  11. 
In  the  former  of  these  passages,  Peter  says:  "Re- 
pent and  be  baptized,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ, 

*  In  the  Lexington  Debate,  Mr.  Campbell  sought  to  evade  the 
force  of  the  argument  founded  on  John  3 :  18,  36,  by  saying, 
the  unbaptized  believer  has  eternal  life  "in  grant,  in  right, 
according  to  the  will  of  God."  p.  457.  But  if  still  under  con- 
demnation, it  is  not  true  that  he  has  it  in  grant,  in  right.  Be- 
sides, the  language  of  Christ  is :  "  He  that  believeth  in  him, 
is  not  condemned."  Of  course,  then,  he  is  justified,  whether 
baptized  or  not. 


:28  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

{eis)  for  (or  into)  the  remission  of  sins."  In  the 
latter,  John  the  Baptist  says:  "I  indeed  baptize 
you  with  water  {eis)  unto  (or  into)  repentance.5' 
In  'these  two  passages,  the  preposition  {eis)  is  the 
same ;  and  the  expressions  precisely  similar.  The 
one,  therefore,  may  explain  the  other.  Will  any  one 
pretend  that  John  baptized  the  Jews  in  order  that 
they  might  repent?  No  one  holds  a  notion  so 
absurd.  Then  how  can  it  be  proved  that  the  prepo- 
sition eis,  in  the  other  passage,  means  in  order  to 
remission  of  sins  ? 

The  following  is  Professor  Stuart's  explanation 
of  this  preposition,  in  connection  with  baptism  :  "  A 
person  may  be  baptized  into  a  thing  (doctrine.)  So 
in  Matt.,  3:  11,  CI  baptize  you  with  water  into 
{eis)  repentance;'  that  is,  into  the  profession  and 
belief  of  the  reality  and  necessity  of  repentance, 
involving  the  idea,  that  themselves  professed  to  be 
subjects  of  it.  In  Acts,  19  :  3,  we  have  <  into  {eis) 
one  body,'  all  in  the  like  sense,  viz  :  by  baptism  the 
public  acknowledgment  is  expressed  of  believing  in, 
and  belonging  to,  a  doctrine,  or  one  body.  So  in 
Acts,  2 :  38,  "  Baptized  on  account  of  Jesus  Christ 
into  {eis)  remission  of  sins;  that  is,  into  the  belief 
and  reception  of  this  doctrine ;  in  other  words,  by 
baptism  and  profession,  an  acknowledgment  of  this 
doctrine,  on  account  of  Jesus  Christ,  was  made."  * 

*  This  is  substantially  the  view  held  by  all  evangelical  d&» 


DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  29 

Not  only  is  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  justification 
unsupported  by  those  Scripture  passages  relied  on  by 
its  advocates,  and  contradicted  by  many  other  pas- 
sages, but  it  is  liable  to  the  charge  of  making  the 
salvation  of  men  dependent  upon  the  reception  of  an 
ordinance,  which  they  cannot  administer  to  them- 
selves, and  which  they  may  not  be  able  to  have 
administered  by  others.  Thus,  a  penitent  believer, 
dying  unbaptized,  must  be  lost,  though  in  the  sight 
of  God  his  heart  was  right.  "  So  in  religion,"  says 
Mr.  Campbell,  ua  man  may  change  his  views  of 
Jesus,  and  his  heart  may  also  be  changed  towards 
him;  but  unless  a  change  of  state  ensues,  he  is  still 
unpardoned,  unjustified,  unsanctified,  unreconciled, 
unadopted,  and  lost  to  all  Christian  hope  and  enjoy- 
ment."* The  heart  maybe  right,  but  because  an 
external  ordinance  cannot  be  received,  the  individual 
remains  in  a  state  of  condemnation,  and  in  danger 
of  eternal  ruin  !     A  greater  abuse  of  ordinances  was 


nominations.  It  is  singular  enough,  that  Mr.  Campbell,  whilst 
holding  that  baptism  is  to  be  administered  in  order  to  the 
remission  of  sins,  should  quote  Calvin  as  agreeing  with  him. 
The  following  language  of  this  great  reformer,  will  set  this 
matter  at  rest :  l'  We  may  see  this  exemplified  in  Cornelius,  the 
centurion,  who,  after  having  received  the  remission  of  his  sins 
and  the  visible  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  was  baptized — not 
with  a  view  to  obtain  by  baptism  a  more  ample  remission  of 
sins,  but  a  stronger  exercise  of  faith,  and  an  increase  of  confi« 
dence  from  that  pledge."  Tnst.  B.  iv.,  ch.  15,  Sec.  14. 
*  Chris.  Sys.;  p.  200, 


30  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

never  known.  Such  a  doctrine  is  not  simply  un- 
scriptural ;  it  is  degrading  to  the  character  of  God.* 

We  can  now  see,  at  a  glance,  the  leading  design 
of  baptism.  It  signifies  consecration  to  the  service 
of  God,  through  Jesus  Christ,  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
It  binds  us  to  the  service  of  God ;  and  it  points  to 
the  cross  of  Christ,  through  whom  only" we  can  ap- 
proach God,  and  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  through  whose 
influence  only  we  can  be  fitted  for  the  divine  ser- 
vice and  for  heaven.  In  a  word,  it  is  the  seal  of  the 
covenant  of  grace. 

5.  But  as  baptism  is  significant  of  our  relations  to 
God,  and  of  our  obligations,  and  of  the  Divine  prom- 
ises ;  so  it  is  significant  of  our  relations  to  his  visible 
church.  God  has  been  pleased  to  separate  his  pro- 
fessing people  from  the  world,  and  to  organize  them 
into  a  church ;  and  the  same  ordinance  which  visibly 
unites  them  to  him,  introduces  them  into  his  church, 
giving  them  a  right  to  the  means  of  grace,  and  sub- 
jecting them  to  proper  discipline.     This  ordinance 

*  In  his  debate  with  McCalla,  Mr.  Campbell,  though  his 
different  statements  are  contradictory,  gave  very  nearly  the 
true  view  of  the  connection  of  baptism  with  remission  of  sins. 
He  said:  "The  water  of  baptism,  then,  formally  washes 
away  our  sins.  The  blood  of  Christ  really  washes  away  our 
sins.  Paul's  sins  were  really  pardoned  when  he  believed  j 
yet  he  had  no  solemn  pledge  of  the  fact,  no  formal  acquittal, 
no  formal  purgation  of  his  sins,  until  he  washes  them  away 
in  the  water  of  baptism."  p.  135.  A  formal  pardon,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  a  real  pardon,  can  mean  nothing  more  than  an 
outward  sign  or  seal  of  that  which  is  already  done. 


DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  31 

was  administered,  for  the  first  time,  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost.  "Then  they  that  gladly  received  his 
word  were  baptized ;  and  the  same  day,  there  were 
added  to  them  about  three  thousand  souls."  * 

Such  being  the  design  of  baptism,  its  practical 
uses  are  easily  perceived.     They  are  as  follows : 

1st.  It  is  be  regarded  as  a  powerful  and  urgent 
argument  in  favor  of  holy  living.  The  awful  name 
of  the  God  of  holiness  has  been  called  upon  the 
baptized  person.  Henceforth  his  glory  amongst  men 
is,  to  some  extent,  placed  in  the  keeping  of  his  pro- 
fessed people.  How  powerful  the  motive,  then,  to 
"walk  worthy  of  the  Lord  to  all  pleasing,  being 
faithful  in  every  good  work,  and  increasing  in  the 
knowledge  of  God." 

Again,  the  element  employed  is  the  emblem  of 
spiritual  cleansing,  and  of  consecration  to  the  holy 
service  of  God.  Let  us  never  forget,  that  water 
has  been  put  upon  us  in  the  name  of  the  Triune  God, 
and  thus  we  were  solemnly  separated  forever  from 
sin  and  uncleanness.  Let  the  recollection  of  this 
fact  ever  urge  us  to  "  perfect  holiness  in  the  fear  of: 
the  Lord." 

Besides,  baptism  is  the  seal  of  the  covenant  of 
grace.  Into  that  covenant,  sealed  with  the  blood 
of  Christ,  and  witnessed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  we  have 
entered,  or  our  pious  parents  entered  into  covenant 

*  Acts,  2 :  41. 


32  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

on  our  behalf.  Shall  we  despise  or  lightly  treat  that 
gracious  covenant  ?  It  is  not  only  obligatory  upon 
us,  but  it  offers  our  only  hope  of  salvation. 

2d.  Baptism  not  only  urges,  but  it  encourages  to 
good  works.  It  points  to  the  cross  of  Christ,  "  who 
gave  himself  for  us,  that  he  might  redeem  us  from 
all  iniquity,  and  purify  unto  himself  a  peculiar 
people,  zealous  of  good  works."  Not  only  does 
the  object  of  our  Saviour's  death  make  an  affecting 
appeal  in  favor  of  holy  living,  but  his  blood  seals  to 
us  all  the  precious  promises  of  God — promises  of 
justification,  of  sanctification,  and  of  adoption.  Bap- 
tism in  the  name  of  Christ,  therefore,  urges  to  a 
life  of  holiness,  and,  at  the  same  time,  promises 
grace  to  enable  us  so  to  live.  Let  us  never  forget 
that  we  have  been  baptized  into  the  death  of  Christ, 
that  we  might  die  to  sin,  and  live  a  new  life. 

Baptism  points  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  warns  us 
against  grieving  him,  and  encourages  to  go  forward 
in  the  path  of  duty.  u  Work  out  your  own  salvation 
with  fear  and  trembling  ;  for  it  is  God  that  worketh 
in  you,  both  to  will  and  to  do,  of  his  good  pleasure.'5 
4  \  What  ?  know  ye  not  that  your  body  is  the  temple  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  which  is  in  you,  which  ye  have  of 
God  ;  and  ye  are  not  your  own  ?  For  ye  are  bought 
with  a  price :  therefore  glorify  God,  in  your  body  and 
in  your  spirit,  which  are  God's." 

The  advantages  to  be  derived  from  baptism,  then, 
are  not  confined  to  the  time  of  its  administration. 


DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM.  33 

On  the  contrary,  it  is  to  exert  an  influence  upon  the 
believer,  until  he  shall  have  passed  beyond  the  reach 
of  ordinances.  It  is  to  be  an  ever-present  motive  and 
encouragement  to  a  life  of  holiness.  It  is  not,  like 
the  Lord's  supper,  to  be  often  repeated  ;  but  it  is  to 
be  constantly  remembered.  It  is  one  solemn  consecra- 
tion  for  life  and  forever — one  seal  of  the  never-fail- 
ing promises  of  the  covenant-keeping  God, 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM, 


LETTER  I. 


REV.  ALEXANDER  CAMPBELL: 

Dear  Sir  :  Your  long  expected  book  on  baptism, 
which  was  partly  printed  more  than  eight  years  ago , 
has,  at  length,  made  its  appearance.  It  is,  I  think, 
yon  have  said,  your  last  work  on  this  subject,  which, 
for  more  than  thirty  years,  has  occupied  your  mind 
and  employed  your  pen.  You  have  taken  ample 
time  to  review  the  arguments  on  both  sides,  since  I 
had  the  pleasure  of  meeting  you  in  the  Lexington 
Debate.  This  book,  of  course,  presents  your  most 
mature  views,  supported  by  your  strongest  arguments. 
If  it  fails  to  sustain  the  opinions  of  anti-pedobap- 
tists,  we  may  fairly  conclude  that  they  are  indefensi- 
ble. I  propose,  by  way  of  complying  with  requests 
repeatedly  made,  to  weigh  your  arguments  in  the 
scales  of  the  sanctuary,  and  thus  to  give  to  the  public 
the  results  of  the  investigations  I  have  made  on  this 
subject. 

Passing  your  "  antecedents,"  I  propose,  first,  to  ex- 
amine your  arguments  on  what  you  call  the  "  Action 


36  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

of  Baptism."  You  have  undertaken  to  establish 
the  following  proposition:  li  Immersion  in  water 
into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  the  only  Christian  Baptism." 
If  you  have  succeeded,  two  serious  conclusions  follow 
inevitably,  viz  : 

1st.  That  the  overwhelming  majority  of  Protest- 
ant Christians,  to  say  nothing  of  Roman  Catholics, 
are  unbaptized.  Amongst  these,  are  found  great 
numbers  of  the  wisest  and  best  men  the  world  has 
known. 

2d.  That  the  churches  which  practice  pouring  or 
sprinkling ,  are  not  true  churches  of  Christ,  and 
their  ministers  are  not  true  ministers  of  Christ,  but 
intruders  into  the  sacred  office,  and  profaners  of 
sacred  things.  For  you  will  scarcely  undertake  to 
prove,  that  the  Scriptures  recognize  unbaptized 
churches,  or  an  unbaptized  ministry. 

These  consequences,  I  admit,  should  not  deter  us 
from  a  thorough  examination  of  the  subject;  but 
they  should  teach  us  not  lightly  or  hastily  to  adopt 
views  which  bear  in  their  train  consequences  of  so 
grave  importance.  They  should  induce  us  to  ap- 
proach the  subject  with  all  possible  candor,  and  to 
examine  it  prayerfully  and  thoroughly.  For  the 
church  of  Christ,  all  counted,  is  "  a  little  flock." 
No  true  Christian  would  be  willing  to  reject  from 
his  fellowship  any  portion  of  them.  Besides,  to  re- 
ject those   whom   Christ  receives,  and   to  produce 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  37 

schism  in  his  mystical  body,  are  sins  of  no  ordinary 
magnitude. 

On  the  following  points,  we  are  happily  agreed, 
viz  : 

L  That  Christian  baptism  was  instituted  by  our 
Lord  after  his  resurrection,  when  he  gave  to  his 
apostles  the  great  commission:  "  Go  ye,  therefore, 
and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them,"  etc.  In 
times  past,  our  Baptist  friends  have  earnestly  con- 
tended, that  the  baptism  of  John  is  Christian  bap- 
tism. In  your  Christian  Baptist r  you  have  pointed 
out  the  radical  differences  between  the  two,  and  have 
strongly  maintained,  that  Paul  did  re-baptize  certain 
disciples  of  John.  You  say:  "I  know  to  what 
tortures  the  passage  has  been  subjected  by  such  cold, 
cloudy,  and  sickening  commentators  as  John  Gill. 
But  no  man  can,  with  any  regard  to  the  grammar 
of  language,  or  the  import  of  the  most  definite 
words,  make  Luke  say  that  when  these  twelve  men 
heard  Paul  declare  the  design  of  John's  immersion, 
they  were  not  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus."  *  Again,  "  Nothing  can  more  fully  exhibit 
the  pernicious  influence  of  favorite  dogmas,  than  to 
see  how  many  of  the  Baptists  have  been  Gillized  and 
Fullerized  into  the  notion  that  these  twelve  men  were 
not  baptized  into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  when 
they  heard  Paul  expound  to  them  the  design  and 


*  pp.  646-648, 

4* 


38  MODE  OF  BAPTISM, 

meaning  of  John's  immersion."  The  language  of 
the  great  Robert  Hall  on  this  point  is  as  strong 
as  yours.  "In  the  whole  compass  of  theological 
controversy,"  says  he,  "  it  would  be  difficult  to 
find  a  stronger  instance  of  the  force  of  prejudice  in 
obscuring  a  plain  matter  of  fact ;  nor  is  it  easy  to 
conjecture  what  could  be  the  temptation  to  do  such 
violence  to  the  language  of  the  Scriptures,  and  to 
-QYerj  principle  of  sober  criticism,  unless  it  were  the 
horror  which  certain  divines  have  conceived  against 
everything  which  bore  the  shadow  of  countenancing 
ana-baptistical  error."  Just  here  let  me  ask,  whether 
it  has  ever  occurred  to  you,  that  possibly  that  same 
powerful  prejudice  which  induced  such  men  as  Gill 
and  Fuller  to  misinterpret  and  pervert  the  plainest 
language  in  Scripture,  may  have  misled  them  and 
even  yourself  in  interpreting  other  language  in  the 
same  volume,  on  the  same  subject  ?  May  it  not  be, 
that  your  zeal  and  theirs  for  exclusive  immersion,  is 
simply  the  result  of  that  prejudice  ? 

II.  We  agree,  that  on  all  points  important  to  the 
Christian  faith,  the  language  of  the  Bible  is  plain, 
and  easily  understood.  On  the  point  now  under  con- 
sideration, you  assert,  that  it  is  too  plain  to  be  mis- 
understood. In  the  Lexington  Debate,  you  made 
the  following  emphatic  declaration:  "I  solemnly 
affirm  it  now,  as  I  have  before  affirmed  it,  and,  as  I 
believe,  already  shown  it,  that  there  is  not  now,  nor 
has  there  ever  been,  at  any  past  period,  a  term  in 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  39 

universal  speech,  more  definite  and  fixed  in  its  mean^ 
ing,  than  this  same  specific  term  baptism,  now  before 
us."  *  You  contend,  then>  that  our  Lord,  in  insti- 
tuting the  ordinance  of  baptism,  did,  in  the  plainest 
and  most  unequivocal  language,  command  his  minis- 
ters to  perform  the  specific  action  of  immersing, 
and  that  no  other  action  can  be  regarded  as  obedience 
to  that  command.  "  Baptism,"  you  have  asserted,, 
"  is  a  specific  action,  and  the  verb  that  represents 
it  is  a  verb  of  specific  import,"  etc.  In  the  year  of 
our  Lord,  1820,  you  claim  the  honor  of  having  dis- 
covered and  exposed  the  mischievous  sophistry  which 
lay  concealed  in  the  apparently  harmless  word  mode, 
the  very  use  of  which  secured  to  the  Pedo -baptist 
at  least  half  a  victory  over  his  unsuspecting  oppo- 
nent. "  Since  1820,"  you  have  said,  "  the  word 
action  is  being  substituted  for  mode." 

I  now  state  a  general  argument,  which  is  of  great 
weight  against  your  doctrine,  that  immersion  is  the 
only  Christian  baptism,  viz  :  The  whole  Christian 
world,  in  all  ages,  so  far  as  history  can  inform  us, 
with  the  exception  of  a  mere  handful,  stand  arrayed 
against  you.  Either  they  or  you  have  misunderstood 
the  language  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  late  learned 
Professor  Stuart,  whom  you  have  honored  with  the 
title  of  your  "  American  Apostle,"  makes  the  fol- 
lowing statement:    "From  all  that  has  been   said 

*  p.  90. 


40  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

above,  it  is  manifest  that  the  great  body  of  Chris- 
tians have  long  come  to  the  full  conviction,  that  no 
one  particular  mode  of  baptism  can  be  justly  con- 
sidered as  essential  to  the  rite  itself."  *  This  is  not 
true  simply  of  the  more  ignorant  classes,  but  of  men 
of  the  most  eminent  learning.  It  is  not  true  of  those 
who  have  given  the  subject  but  a  passing  notice,  but 
o£  those  who  have  given  it  the  most  patient  and 
thorough  examination.  They  have  not  taken  the 
ground,  that  although  Jesus  Christ  commanded  im- 
mersion, men  may  venture  to  substitute  pouring 
or  sprinkling;  but  they  have  deliberately  denied 
that  he  did  command  immersion.  They  have  said,  with 
Professor  Stuart,  u  that  no  injunction  is  anywhere 
given  in  the  New  Testament,  respecting  the  manner 
in  which  this  rite  shall  be  performed."  This  ground 
has  not  been  taken  only  by  those  who  believe  that 
the  apostles  baptized  by  sprinkling,  but  by  those  who 
have  favored  the  opinion  that  immersion  was  gen- 
erally practiced  in  the  apostolic  age.  Calvin  was 
disposed  to  make  this  admission ;  and  yet  he  says  : 
"It  is  of  no  consequence  at  all  (minimum  refert) 
whether  the  person  baptized  is  totally  immersed,  or 
whether  he  is  merely  sprinkled  by  an  effusion  of 
water.  This  should  be  a  matter  of  choice  to  the 
churches  in  different  regions."  t  He  did  not  say,  as 
he  has  been  represented,  that  the  church  has  a  right 

•  Mode  of  Bap.  p.  92.        f  Inst.  B.  iv.,  chap.  15,  sec.  19. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  41 

to  change  the  ordinances  so  as  to  do  something 
different  from  that  which  Jesus  Christ  commanded ; 
but  he  denied  that  he  gave  any  command  respecting 
the  mode  of  administering  baptism.*  His  language 
is  as  follows  :  u  Pro  ipsa  quidem  baptismi  ceremonia, 
quatenus  nobis  a  Christo  tradita  est,  centies  potius 
ad  mortem  usque  digladiandum,  quam  ut  earn  nobis 
eripi  sinamus :  sed  quum  in  aquae  symbolo  testimo- 
nium habemus  tarn  ablutionis  nostrae,  quam  novae 
vitae :  quum  in  aqua,  velut  in  speculo,  sanguinem 
nobis  suum  Christus  repraesentat,  ut  munditiem  inde 


*  Mr.  Campbell,  in  his  debate  with  McCalla,  most  singularly 
and  grossly  misrepresented  the  language  and  the  sentiments  of 
Calvin,  and,  at  the  same  time,  equally  misrepresented  the  senti- 
ments of  other  learned  Pedo-baptists.  This  misrepresentation 
was  exposed  in  the  Lexington  Debate,  (p.  323,)  and  Mr.  OL 
made  little  or  no  effort  to  defend  himself.  Let  the  reader  com- 
pare the  following,  which  is  copied  from  the  debate  with  Mc- 
Calla, with  the  following  language  of  Calvin,  as  given  above  : 

"  But  because  I  have  quoted  Calvin,  Luther,  and  many  other 
Pedo-baptists  as  declaring  that  baptizo  signifies  to  immerse,  to 
dip,  to  plunge  literally,  Mr.  M.  and  Mr.  R.  are  exceedingly  ex* 
asperated  and  would  have  such  concessions  construed  into  insig- 
nificant words,  seeing  those  men  practiced  sprinkling.  But 
why  did  they  practice  sprinkling?  Most  certainly,  not  be- 
cause they  supposed  this  to  be  either  the  meaning  of  the  term, 
nor  the  ancient  practice.  Why  then?  I  will  let  Calvin  declare, 
Hear  him.  Hear  him,  my  friends  :  '  The  church  did  grant 
liberty  to  herself  since  the  beginning  TO  CHANGE 
THE  RITES  SOMEWHAT,  excepting  the  substance.' 
This  is  the  reason,  then,  why  they  tolerated  sprinkling;  and 
their  concessions  are  unimpaired  by  this  declaration.      Some 


42  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

nostrum  petamus  :  quum  docet  nos  Spiritu  sno  re- 
fingi,  ut  mortui  peccato,  justitige  vivamus  ;  nihil  quod 
ad  baptismi  substantiam  facial,  deesse  nobis  certum 
est :  Quare  ab  initio  libere  sib  permisit  ecclesia,  ex- 
tra hanc  substantiam,  ritus  habere  paululum  dissim- 
iles:  nam  alii,  ter,  alii  autem  semel  tantum  mergebant." 
That  is,  "  As  regards  the  ceremony  itself  of  bap- 
tism, as  it  was  delivered  to  us  by  Christ,  it  were 
fa  hundred  times  better  that  we  perish  by  the  sword 
than  permit  it  to  be  taken  from  us  :  but  when  in  the 
symbol  of  water  we  have  the  testimony,  as  well  of 
our  cleansing  as  of  our  new  life  :    when  in  water, 


pages  of  Mr.  R.'s  illnatured  criminations,  for  quoting  those 
concessions,  assume  the  gaseous  form  in  the  presence  of  these 
words  of  Calvin.  The  fact  is,  those  learned  Pedo-baptists 
conceded  the  points  at  issue  now,  but  pleased  themselves  with 
the  supposed  power  the  church  had,  from  the  beginning,  of 
<  CHANGING  THE  RITES  SOMEWHAT.'  Hence  they 
changed  immersion  into  sprinkling,  and  a  river  or  a  bath 
into  a  basin.  For  '  Calvin,  Arctius,  Piscator,  Grotius,  and 
Macknight  declare  that  the  reason  why  John  baptized  at  JEnon, 
was  because  the  water  was  deep  enough  to  immerse.'  The 
only  question  between  those  learned  Pedo-baptists  and  us,  is 
not  about  the  meaning  of  baptisma,  for  in  this  we  agree,  but 
about  c  this  right  the  church  granted  herself.  We  allege  the 
essence  of  popery  is  contained  in  this  right  or  assumption, 
those  men  did  not  see  this,  or  if  they  did,  did  not  think  proper 
to  abandon  it.  I  fearlessly  affirm  that  the  Presbyterian  church 
is  founded  on  the  very  principle  assumed  in  those  words  of 
Calvin.  They  have  granted  unto  themselves  the  liberty  of 
changing  the  rites  somewhat,  sometimes  scarcely  retain- 
the  substance.' " 


MODE  OF  BAFTISM.  43 

as  in  a  mirror,  Christ  represents  to  us  his  blood, 
that  thence  we  may  seek  our  purification :  when  he 
teaches  us  to  be  renewed  by  his  Spirit,  that  being 
dead  to  sin,  we  may  live  to  righteousness,  it  is  cer- 
tain that  we  lack  nothing  which  pertains  to  the 
substance  of  baptism.  Wherefore,  from  the  be- 
ginning, the  church  has  freely  allowed  herself, 
beyond  this  substance,  to  have  rites  a  little  dis- 
similar ;  for  some  immersed  thrice,  but  others  only 
once,"  Jesus  Christ,  Calvin  contended,  delivered 
to  us  the  ordinance,  and  that  we  must  preserve  it  in 
its  purity.  Concerning  the  mode  of  administering 
it,  he  gave  no  command.  Therefore,  the  church 
has,  "  from  the  beginning  " — from  the  days  of  the 
apostles — felt  perfectly  at  liberty  to  practice  different 
modes. 

The  same  ground  is  taken  by  the  learned  Turrettine, 
who  has  so  long  been  regarded  as  amongst  the  very 
first  standard  writers  on  theology.  He  contends, 
that  aspersion  as  well  as  immersion  was  practiced 
in  the  apostolic  age  ;  and  amongst  the  reasons  in 
favor  of  the  former,  is  the  following  :  "  Because  the 
word  baptisma  and  the  word  baptizesthai  are  used 
not  only  concerning  immersion,  but  also  concerning 
aspersion"  *    Many  other  men  of  eminent  learning 

•  Dr.  Doddridge  favored  the  idea,  that  in  the  apostolic  age, 
baptism  was  generally  performed  by  immersion,  which  he 
thought  not  remarkable,  "  considering  how  frequently  bathing 
was  used  in  those  hot  countries ; "   yet  he  said :  "  I  see  no 


44  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

hold  the  same  view.     Indeed,  it  is  the  prevailing  view 
among  Protestants* 

But  this  view  of  the  subject  is  not  confined  to 
modern  times.  It  was  universally  held,  so  far  as  we 
can  learn,  by  the  aneient  church.  In  the  third  and 
immediately  succeeding  century,  it  is  true  that  trine 
immersion  was  extensively  practiced,  with  the  candi- 
date divested  of  his  garments,  and  with  the  sign 
of  the  cross,  milk  and  honey,  and  other  supersti- 


proof  that  it  was  essential  to  the  Institution."  Corneilius  and 
his  family  he  believed  to  have  been  baptized  by  pouring. 
Commenting  on  Acts  10:  47,  he  says:  "But  it  seems  most 
natural  to  understand  it,  (as  Dr.  Whitby  does,)  '  Who  can  for- 
bid that  water  should  be  brought  ?'  In  which  view  of  the 
clause,  one  would  naturally  conclude  they  were  baptized  by 
pouring  water  on  them,  rather  than  by  plunging  them  into  it." 

That  baptism,  by  pouring  or  sprinkling,  is  valid  and  scrip- 
tural, was  held  by  such  men  as  Martin  Luther,  Theodore  Beza, 
Witsius,  Owen,  Lightfoot,  Scott,  Henry,  Watts,  Flavel,  Dr. 
Adam  Clarke,  Dr.  Timothy  Dwight,  Dr.  Chalmers,  Dr.  Dick, 
etc.,  etc.  All  either  deny  that  immersion  was  at  all  practiced 
by  the  apostles,  or  hold  that,  there  being  no  command  as  to  the 
mode,  it  is  a  matter  of  indifference. 

Dr.  Owen,  whose  eminent  learning  no  one  will  question,  says: 
il  Baptizo  signifies  to  wash  ;  as  instances  out  of  all  authors 
may  be  given — Suidas,  Hesychius,  Julius  Pollux,  Phavorinus, 
and  Eustachius.  It  is  first  used  in  the  Scripture :  Mark  1:8; 
John  1 :  33 ;  and  to  the  same  purpose  in  Acts  1:5.  In  every 
place,  it  either  signifies  to  pour,or  the  expression  is  equivocal.  'I 
baptize  you  with  water,  but  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy 
Ghost;'  which  is  the  accomplishment  of  that  promise,  'that 
the  Holy  Ghost  shall  be  poured  on  them.'  Again,  "  No  one 
place  can  be  given  in  the  Scriptures,  wherein  baptizo  doth 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  45 

lions.  Stuart  states,  "  that  all  candidates  for  bap- 
tism, men,  women,  and  infants,  were  completely 
divested  of  all  their  garments,  in  order  to  be  bap- 
tized. Revolting  as  this  custom  was,  yet  it  is  as 
certain  as  testimony  can  make  it."  *  But  it  is  a 
remarkable  fact,  that  even  in  those  days  of  supersti- 
tion, when  so  great  efficacy  was  attributed  to  the 
ordinance,  and  When  trine  immersion  "was  the  pre- 
vailing practice ,  none  ventured  to  maintain,  with  Mr. 


necessarily  signify  either  to  dip  or  plunge.'  Again,  e  In  this 
sense,  as  it  expresseth  baptism,  it  denotes  to  wash  only,  and 
not  to  dip  at  all;  for  so  it  is  expounded — Titus  3:  5,  etc.' 
Again,  '  Wherefore,  in  this  sense,  as  the  word  is  applied  unto 
the  ordinance,  the  sense  of  dipping  is  utterly  excluded."" — 
Owen's  Works  :  vol.  21,  p.  557. 

Dr.  George  Hill,  Principal  of  St.  Mary's  College,  St.  An- 
drew's, a  very  learned  man,  says :  "  Both  sprinkling  and  im- 
mersion are  implied  in  the  word  baptizo  ;  both  were  used  in 
the  religious  ceremonies  of  the  Jews,  and  both  may  be  con- 
sidered as  significant  of  the  purpose  of  baptismj  etc.''— Hill's 
Divinity,  p.  659. 

Dr.  John  Dick,  Professor  of  Theology  to  the  United  Session 
Church,  says  :  "  We  have  seen  that  nothing  certain  as  to  mode 
can  be  learned  from  the  original  term  baptizo,  because  it  has 
different  meanings,  signifying  sometimes  to  immerse,  and  some- 
times to  wash,  etc." — Divinity,  pp.  470,  471. 

Dr.  Adam  Clark,  an  eminent  linguist,  says  :  "  In  what  form 
baptism  was  originally  administered,  has  been  deemed  a  subject 
worthy  of  serious  dispute  :  Were  the  people  dipped  or  sprink- 
led ?  for  it  is  certain  that  bapto  and  baptizo  mean  both." 

Dr.  Thomas  Scott,  the  Commentator,  quotes  Bishop  Leigh- 
ton,  as  saying:  "It  (baptizo)  is  taken  more  largely  for  any 
*  Mode  of  Bap.,  p.  75, 

■5 


46  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

Campbell  and  other  immersionists  of  modern  times, 
that  baptism  is  the  action  of  immersing.  In  eases 
of  sickness  or  of  imminent  danger,  it  is  certain  that 
effusion  or  sprinkling  were  permitted.  Cyprian,  who 
lived  in  the  third  century,  and  who  was  one  of  the 
most  eminent  of  the  fathers,  decidedly  maintained 
the  validity  of  baptism  thus  administered,  and  for- 
bade re-baptizing  such  persons.      The   Council   of 

kind  of  washing,  rinsing,  or  cleansing,  even  where  there  is  no 
dipping  at  all;"  and  then  remarks:  "  The  word  was  adopted 
from  the  Greek  authors,  and  a  sense  put  upon  it  by  the  in- 
spired writers,  according  to  the  style  of  Scripture,  to  signify 
the  use  of  water  in  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  and  in  many 
things  of  a  spiritual  nature  that  stood  related  to  it.  Some,  in- 
deed, contend  zealously  that  baptism  always  signifies  immer- 
sion ;  but  the  use  of  the  words  baptize  and  baptism,  in  the  New 
Testament,  cannot  accord  with  this  exclusive  interpretation." 
This  he  gives  as  a  conclusion  resulting  from  "many  years' 
consideration  and  study." 

Dr.  Timothy  Dwight,  who  stood  prominent  amongst  the  most 
learned  men  in  the  United  States,  says :  "  I  have  examined 
almost  one  hundred  instances  in  which  the  word  baptizo  and 
its  derivations  are  used  in  the  New  Testament,  and  four  in 
the  Septuagint,  and  these,  so  far  as  I  have  observed,  being  all 
the  instances  contained  in  both.  By  this  examination,  it  is,  to 
my  apprehension,  evident,  that  the  following  things  are  true : 
That  the  primary  meaning  of  these  terms  is  cleansing — the 
effect,  not  the  mode,  of  washing ;  that  the  mode  is  usually  re- 
ferred to  incidentally,  whenever  these  words  are  mentioned, 
and  that  this  is  always  the  case,  whenever  the  ordinance  of 
baptism  is  mentioned,  and  a  reference  made,  at  the  same  time, 
to  the  mode  of  administration ;  that  these  words,  though  often 
capable  of  denoting  any  mode  of  washing,  whether  by  affu- 
sion, sprinkling,  or  immersion,  (since  cleansing  was  familiarly 


MODE  OP  BAPTISM.  47 

Neo-Csesarea  and  the  Council  of  Laodicea  sanctioned 

such  baptisms.* 
Now,  I  have  two  questions  to  ask,  viz  : 
1st.  If  the  Bible  is  a  plain  book,  easily  understood 

on  all  points  of  great  importance  ;  and  if,  as  Mr. 

Campbell  affirms,  our  Lord  did,  in  the  most  specific 

accomplished  by  the  Jews  in  all  these  ways,)  yet,  in  many 
instances,  cannot,  without  obvious  impropriety,  be  made  to 
signify  immersion ;  and  in  others,  cannot  signify  it  at  all." 
Theology,  vol.  5,  p.  331. 

Dr.  Samuel  Hopkins,  one  of  the  most  eminent  divines  of  New 
England,  says  :  "  As  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  and  the  form  and 
manner  of  applying  water  in  this  ordinance  to  the  person  bap- 
tized, it  does  not  appear  to  be  decidedly  fixed  in  the  Scripture, 
whether  it  be  by  plunging,  pouring  on  water,  aspersion,  or 
sprinkling.  Each  of  these  ways  has  been  embraced  and  prac- 
ticed by  different  churches ;  and  some  do  insist,  that  plunging 
the  person  wholly  under  water  is  the  only  scriptural  mode  of 
baptism,  and  that  none  are  really  baptized,  who  are  not  thus 
plunged.  But  when  the  Scripture  is  carefully  examined,  it  will 
not  appear  that  this  form  of  baptism  was  instituted  by  Christ, 
or  practiced  by  the  apostles ;  or  that  the  word  in  the  original, 
translated  baptism,  or  to  baptize,  invariably  signifies  plung- 
ing the  whole  body  in  water.  This  has  been  particularly  con- 
sidered* and  proved  over  and  over  again,  by  writers  on  this 
subject :  therefore,  their  opinion  and  practice,  with  regard  to 
baptism,  seems  to  be  most  agreeable  to  Scripture,  who  think  no 
particular  form  of  applying  water  in  baptism  is  prescribed 
there,  by  precept  or  example,  or  by  anything  that  is  there  said 
on  this  point,"  etc. — Hopkins'  System,  vol.  2,  p.  261. 

Authorities  from  the  most  eminent  theologians  might  be  mul- 
tiplied indefinitely  j  but  these  are  sufficient  to  show  the  general 
opinion  of  learned  Protestants. 

*  Euseb.  B.,  vi,  ch.  43. 


48  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

manner,  command  immersion  ;  Low  shall  we  account 
for  the  fact,  that  all  the  ancient  church  and  the  over- 
whelming body  of  Christians  in  modern  times,  have 
so  strangely  misunderstood  him  ?  Certainly,  on  this 
supposition  all  those  professing  Christians  must  be 
charged  with  a  most  amazing  stupidity  or  perverse- 
ness. 

2d.  Is  it  not  far  more  probable  that  modern  im- 
mersionists  have  been  misled  by  that  common  frailty 
of  human  nature  which  attaches  undue  importance 
to  modes  and  forms,  than  that  the  whole  Christian 
world  besides,  embracing  multitudes  of  the  eminently 
wise  and  good,  should  have  failed  to  understand 
one  of  the  plainest  precepts  ever  given  ?  Mr.  C. 
admits  that  such  a  prejudice  induced  Drs.  Gill  and 
Fuller,  with  multitudes  of  Baptists,  to  misunderstand 
and  pervert  an  exceedingly  plain  historical  narrrative 
in  Acts,  19  :  1-5. 

I  leave  these  questions  for  the  reflection  of  the 
candid  reader. 


LETTER  n. 

Dear  Sir  :  Immersionists,  as  we  have  seen,  make 
very  large  demands  upon  our  credulity,  leaving  us  in 
doubt  whether  most  to  wonder  at  the  amazing  blind- 
ness which  has  prevented  all  other  Christians  from 
understanding  one  of  the  plainest  precepts,  or  to 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM,  49 

admire  the  perfect  clearness  with  which,  without  any 
perceptible  reason,  they  see  what  all  the  world  besides 
never  could  see.  The  probability  evidently  is,  that 
they  are  laboring  under  mistakes. 

Unwilling  to  rely,  in  defence  of  your  views,  upon 
the  interpretation  of  the  language  of  Inspiration, 
you  have  advanced  what  you  call  an  a  priori  argu- 
ment. Baptism,  you  tell  us,  is  "  a  positive  ordi- 
nance," and,  therefore,  a  specific  action.  Conse- 
quently, it  was  to  be  expected  that  it  would  be 
expressed  by  a  specific  term,  which  term  is  baptizo. 
Now,  it  is  true  that  baptism  is  a  positive  ordinance  ; 
but  it  is  not  true  that  every  positive  ordinance  is  an 
action.  No  ordinance,  I  admit,  can  be  administered 
without  the  performance  of  one  or  more  actions  ;  but 
it  does  not  follow,  either  that  an  ordinance  is  an 
action,  or  that  the  same  actions  precisely  must  be  in- 
variably performed  in  the  administration  of  an  ordi- 
nance. A  watch  cannot  be  made  without  the  per- 
formance of  certain  acts  ;  but  a  watch  is  not  a  series 
of  actions.  The  Passover  was  a  positive  ordinance, 
and  so  is  the  Lord's  Supper,  but  who  ever  read  or 
heard  of  the  action  of  the  Passover,  or  the  action 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  ?  Yet  such  language  would  be 
quite  as  proper  as  the  action  of  baptism.  Again, 
if  baptism  were  an  action,  whenever  that  action  is 
performed,  baptism  would  be  administered.  Conse- 
quently, if  any  man,  woman,  or  child,  should  plunge 
another  into  water,  milk,  oil,  or  any  other  fluid, 
5* 


50  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

whether  in  sport,  anger,  or  in  religious  zeal,  such 
individual  would  receive  Christian  baptism!  You 
answer,  no,  the  action  must  be  performed  by  a 
proper  person,  upon  a  proper  subject,  in  a  proper 
fluid,  in  a  proper  name.  So  then  it  appears,  that 
there  are  several  other  things  as  essential  to  baptism, 
to  say  the  least,  as  the  action  ;  and  these  things  are 
the  constituent  parts  of  baptism.  How  absurd,  then, 
to  say,  that  baptism  is  an  action  !  It  would  be  just 
as  true  to  say,  that  baptism  is  water,  or  that  baptism 
is  the  repetition  of  the  prescribed  formula,  "  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,"  etc. 

But  you  are  confident  that  Jesus  Christ  "  must 
have  intended  some  particular  action  to  be  performed 
by  his  ministers,  and  submitted  to  by  his  people,  in 
the  command  to  baptize  them  ; "  and  you  further 
think,  that  he  must  have  expressed  that  action  by  one 
specific  term.  Therefore,  you  say,  "  It  follows  that 
he  did  select  such  a  word,  or  that  he  could  not,  or 
would  not,  do  it."  Either  of  the  last  suppositions, 
viz  :  that  he  could  not,  or  would  not,  select  such  a 
word,  you  are  sure,  would  reflect  injuriously  upon 
the  character  of  our  Lord.  In  reply  to  this,  let  me 
inquire — 

1st.  How  do  you  know  that  Jesus  Christ  must 
have  intended  some  particular  action  to  be  performed  ? 
Are  you,  or  any  other  finite  being,  capable  of  decid- 
ing what  Infinite  Wisdom  must  have  intended  ?  We 
can  know  his  intentions  only  so  far  as  he  has  ex- 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  51 

pressed  them  ;  and  all  such  reasoning  is  both  incon- 
clusive and  dangerous.  Let  us  remember  "who  has 
said,  "  My  thoughts  are  not  your  thoughts  ;  neither 
are  your  ways  my  ways."  If  the  opinion  of  the 
overwhelming  majority  of  wise  and  good  men  be  true, 
that  the  mode  of  applying  the  water  in  baptism  is 
not  of  essential  importance  ;  then,  there  is  no  reason 
to  suppose,  our  Lord  intended  one  particular  action 
to  be  performed.  You  very  quietly  assume,  without 
proof,  one  of  the  main  points  in  debate,  viz :  that 
the  mode  of  applying  the  water  is  essential ;  and 
from  this  assumption  you  reason  in  favor  of  immer- 
sion ! 

2d.  But  your  reasoning  is  directly  in  the  face  of 
facts.  It  is  a  fact,  that  God  has  appointed  positive 
ordinances,  in  the  administration  of  which  no  par- 
ticular action  was  required — ordinances  which  might 
be  administered  in  different  modes.  He  said  to  Moses  : 
"  Aaron  and  his  sons  thou  shalt  bring  unto  the  door 
of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  and  wash 
them  there."  *  The  word  here  translated  wash,  is 
rahatz,  in  the  Septuagint,  ouo ,  and  you  have  said, 
"  Washing  is  a  generic  term,  under  which  sprinkling, 
pouring,  dipping,  may  be  specific  terms."  f  You 
must  admit,  therefore,  that  Moses  might  have  obeyed 
the  command  by  using  water  in  either  of  these  modes. 
And  yet,  why  may  we  not  apply  your  logic  here,  and 

*  Exod.,  29  :  4.     f  Debate,  p.  99. 


52  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

say,  God  must  have  intended  Moses  to  perform  some 
particular  action,  and  would,  therefore,  choose  a  word 
definitely  expressing  such  action  ;  and,  consequently, 
rahatz  (wash)  is  a  specific,  not  a  generic  term? 
The  logic  would  be  quite  as  good  in  the  latter  case, 
as  in  .the  former  ;  but  it  would  prove  what  you  admit 
not  to  be  true. 

Another  positive  ordinance  very  similar  to  this,  is 
found  in  Num.,  19:  19,  where  a  man  ceremonially 
unclean  is  commanded  to  "  bathe  himself  in  water." 
The  word  translated  bathe,  is  rahatz,  the  literal 
translation  of  which  is  ivash  ;  and  you  will  not  pre- 
tend that  either  bathe  or  ivash  expresses  any  definite 
action.  Nor  will  you  deny  that  bathing  or  wash- 
ing may  be  performed  in  different  ways.  In  Deut. 
21:  6,  we  find  the  following  language:  "And  all 
the  elders  of  that  city  that  are  next  unto  the  slain 
man,  shall  wash  their  hands  over  the  heifer,"  etc. 
You  will  not  pretend  that  any  definite  action  is  here 
expressed  by  the  word  wash. 

Here,  then,  we  have  three  positive  ordinances  (and 
others  might  easily  be  mentioned)  in  which  no  par- 
ticular action  is  commanded — ordinances  in  the  ap- 
pointment of  which  God  employed  a  generic  term, 
expressing  the  thing  to  be  done,  but  not  the  mode 
of  doing  it — ordinances  which  might  be  administered 
by  sprinkling,  pouring,  or  dipping.  Why  may  not 
the  same  be  true  of  baptism  ?  Who  shall  venture  to 
assert,  in  the  face  of  such  facts,  that  every  positive 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  53 

ordinance  is  a  definite  action,  which  must  be  ex- 
pressed by  a  specific  word  ? 

3d.  But  are  not  the  probabilities  in  the  other  direc- 
tion? Baptism,  you  acknowledge,  is  constantly 
presented  in  the  Scriptures  as  an  ablution,  a  wash- 
ing. I  have  been  quite  interested  in  reading  the 
following  statement,  which  I  find  in  your  Christian 
Baptist  for  January  7th,  1828  : 

"  In  the  outer  court  of  the  Jewish  Tabernacle, 
there  stood  two  important  articles  of  furniture  of 
most  significant  import :  the  brazen  altar  next  to  the 
door,  and  the  layer  between  the  brazen  altar  and  the 
sanctuary.  In  this  layer,  filled  with  water,  the  priests, 
after  they  paid  their  devotion  at  the  altar,  as  they 
came  in,  and  before  they  approached  the  sanctuary, 
always  washed  themselves,  etc.  Paul,  more  than 
once,  alludes  to  this  usage  in  the  Tabernacle  in  his 
epistles,  and  even  substitutes  Christian  immersion  in 
its  place ;  that  is,  Christian  immersion  stands  in  rela- 
tion to  the  same  place  in  the  Christian  temple  or 
worship,  that  the  laver,  or  bath  of  purification,  stood 
in  the  Jewish."  etc.  And  in  the  succeeding  number, 
you  prove  "  that  frequent  allusions  to  baptism  in  the 
sacred  epistles,  represent  it  as  an  ablution  ; "  and 
you  refer  correctly  to  Eph.  5  :  26  ;  Tit.  3:5;  Heb. 
10  :  22  ;  2  Peter  1 :  9. 

Now,  if  baptism  is  an  ablution.,  a  ivashing — 
if  such  is  the  meaning  of  the  ordinance,  is  it  not 
very  probable  that  in  instituting  it,  our  Lord  would 


54  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

select  a  word  expressive  of  its  meaning  ?  He  did  so 
in  appointing  other  ordinances.  The  word  passover 
does  not  express  any  action  to  be  performed,  but  the 
meaning  of  the  ordinance.  The  word  wash,  and 
the  word  laver,  as  connected  with  the  purification  of 
the  priests,  express  the  meaning  of  the  ordinance — a 
cleansing — not  any  action  to  be  performed.  And 
if  baptism  takes,  in  the  Christian  temple,  the  place 
of  the  washing  in  the  Jewish  temple ;  and  if  it  is 
constantly  represented  as  a  washing,  is  it  not  ex- 
ceedingly probable  that  the  word  baptize*,  as  used  by 
the  Jews  in  relation  to  their  religious  ablutions,  sig- 
nified ivashing,  cleansing,  and  that  in  this  sense,  it 
was  employed  by  Christ  and  his  apostles  ? 

Thus  we  find  the  a  priori  argument  decidedly 
against  you.  Let  us  now  inquire  more  directly  into 
the  meaning  of  the  word  baptizo.  And  let  our  readers 
note  particularly  how  much  the  immersionist  must 
prove,  before  he  can  sustain  his  doctrine. 

1.  Suppose  him  to  prove  that  the  primary  or 
original  meaning  of  baptizo  was  to  immerse,  will 
it  follow  that  such  was  its  ordinary  meaning  when 
our  Saviour  was  on  earth  ?  No  ;  for  words  are  con- 
stantly changing  their  meaning.  Mr.  Campbell  him- 
self says  :  "  A  living  language  is  continually  chang- 
ing. Like  the  fashions  and  customs  in  apparel, 
words  and  phrases,  at  one  time  current  and  fashion- 
able, in  the  lapse  of  time  become  awkward  and 
obsolete.     But  this  is  not  all.     Many  of  them,  in  a 


MODE  OP  BAPTISM.  55 

century  or  two,  come  to  have  a  signification  very 
different  from  that  "which  was  once  attached  to  them. 
Nay,  some  are  known  to  convey  ideas  not  only  differ- 
ent from,  but  contrary  to,  their  first  signification."  * 
Mr.  Carson,  a  learned  and  zealous  Baptist,  says  : 
"  A  word  may  come  to  enlarge  its  meaning,  so  as  to 
lose  sight  of  its  origin.  This  fact  must  be  obvious 
to  every  smatterer  in  philology."  f  This  rule  is  laid 
down  by  all  writers  on  interpretation.  When,  there- 
fore, the  immersionist  has  proved  by  the  Lexicons, 
that  the  original  meaning  of  baptizo  was  to  im~ 
merse,  he  has  done  Tery  little  toward  establishing  his 
doctrine  ;  for  the  word  had  been  long  in  use  when  our 
Saviour  was  on  earth,  and  may  have  entirely  changed 
its  meaning.  For  instance,  suppose  an  individual 
should  insist  that  the  word  prevent,  found  in  a  book 
written  half  a  dozen  years  ago,  means  to  precede,  or 
to  come  before',  he  might  turn  to  all  English  Dic- 
tionaries, and  triumphantly  prove  that  such  is  its 
primary  meaning.  If  he  would  turn  to  Johnson's 
large  Dictionary,  he  would  find  to  hinder  given  as 
the  fifth  meaning.  What  would  be  thought  of  such 
a  man,  if  he  should  insist  that  the  word,  as  used  by 
a  writer  in  our  day,  must  be  understood  in  its  pri- 
mary sense?  Mr.  Campbell  himself  admits  that, 
although  two  hundred  years  ago  this  word  meant 
to  precede,  "  now  it  is  commonly  used  as  equiv- 

*  Pref.  to  N,  Test.,  p.  1.     f  Mode  of  Baptism,  p.  62. 


56  MODS  OF  BAPTISM. 

alent  to  hinder."  *  (Preface  to  New  Testament, 
p.  5.) 

2.  Suppose  the  immersionist  to  prove,  that  even 
in  our  Saviour's  day,  the  word  baptizo  was  used  by 
pagan  Greeks  ordinarily  in  the  sense  of  i?nmers- 
ing;  would  it  follow,  that  the  Jews  employed  it,  with 
reference  to  religious  ablutions,  in  the  same  sense? 
No ;  for  multitudes  of  Greek  words  are  used  in  the 
Septuagint  and  in  the  New  Testament  in  a  sense 
in  which  they  are  never  found  in  classic  authors. 
On  this  point,  the  following  declarations  of  Prof. 
Stuart  are  pertinent : 

"  New  Testament  usage  of  the  word,  (baptizo,) 


*  Ernesti,  a  learned  linguist,  says  :  "  The  primitive  or  proper 
signification,  strictly  understood,  often  becomes  obsolete,  and 
ceases,  for  a  long  period,  to  be  used.  In  this  case,  the  second- 
ary sense,  which  originally  would  have  been  the  tropical  one, 
becomes  the  proper  one.  This  applies  especially  to  the  names 
of  things.  Hence,  there  are  many  words  which,  at  present-, 
never  have  their  original  and  proper  sense-^such  as  etymology 
would  assign  them— but  only  the  secondary  senses,  which  may, 
in  such  cases,  be  called  the  proper  sense,"  etc.  In  like  manner, 
the  tropical  sense  of  certain  words  has  become  so  common,  by 
usage,  that  it  is  better  understood  than  the  original  sense.  In 
this  case,  too,  we  call  the  word  proper;  although,  strictly  and 
technically  speaking,  one  might  insist  on  its  being  called 
tropical.  If  one  should,  by  his  last  will,  give  a  library 
(bibliothecam)  to  another,  we  should  not  call  the  use  of 
bibliotheca  tropical ;  although,  strictly  speaking,  it  is  so,  for 
bibliotheca  originally  meant  the  shelves  or  place  where  books 
are  deposited." 

Professor  Stuart  says :  "  The  literal  sense  (of  words)  is  the 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  57 

in  cases  not  relevant  to  this  rita,  clearly  does  not 
entitle  you  (immerszonists)  to  such  a  conclusion 
with  any  confidence.  If  you  say,  '  The  classical 
usage  of  the  word  abundantly  justifies  the  construc- 
tion I  have  put  upon  it,"  my  reply  is,  that  classical 
usage  can  never  be  very  certain  in  respect  to  the 
meaning  of  a  word  in  the  New  Testament.  Who 
does  not  know  that  a  multitude  of  Greek  words  have 
received  their  .coloring  and  particular  meaning  from 
the  Hebrew,  and  not  from  the  Greek  classics.  Does 
theos,  (God,)  ouranos,  (heaven,)  sarx,  (flesh,) 
pistis,  (faith,)  dikaiosune,  (righteousness,)  and 
other  words  almost  without  number,  exhibit  meanings 
which  conform  to  the  Greek  classics ;  or  which,  in 
several  respects,  can  even  be  illustrated  by  them? 
Not  at  all.     Then,  how  can  you  be  over  confident  in 


same  as  the  primitive  or  original  sense  ;  or,  at  least,  it  is  equiv- 
alent to  that  sense  which  has  usurped  the  place  of  the  original 
one.  For  example,  the  original  sense  of  the  word  tragedy  has 
long  ceased  to  be  current,  and  the  literal  sense  of  this  word 
now,  is  that  which  has  taken  place  of  the  original ." — Notes 
on  Ernesti,  p.  8. 

One  of  the  chief  defects  in  the  arguments  of  immersionists, 
is  the  entire  disregard  of  this  most  important  principle  of  lan- 
guage. "When  they  have  proved,  as  they  suppose,  that  the 
primary  meaning  of  baptizo  is  to  immerse,  they  imagine  them- 
selves entitled  to  the  conclusion,  that  such  was  its  meaning  at 
the  time  when  our  Saviour  and  the  apostles  used  it.  And  they 
quote  Greek  writers,  without  the  slightest  reference  to  the 
period  in  which  they  wrote.  I  have  not  observed  a  similar  pro- 
ceeding in  regard  to  any  other  word. 

6 


I 


58  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

the  application  of  £be  classical  meaning  of  bapttzGf 
when  the  word  is  employed  in  relation  to  a  rite  that 
is  purely  Christian  ?  Such  a  confidence  is  indeed 
common ;  but  it  is  not  the  more  rational,  nor  the  more 
becoming  on  that  account." 

Dr.  Campbell,  of  Scotland,  who  was  favorable  to 
immersion,  lays  down  the  same  principle.  He  says  :- 
"  Though  the  New  Testament  is  written  in  Greek,  an 
acquaintance  with  the  Greek  classics,  (that  is,  with 
the  writings  of  profane  authors  in  that  tongue,  m 
prose  and  verse,)  will  not  be  found  so  conducive  to 
this  end,  [the  understanding  of  its  language,]  as  an 
acquaintance  with  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  I  am  far 
from  denying  that  classical  knowledge  is,  even  for 
this  purpose,  of  real  utility.  I  say  only,  that  it  is 
not  of  so  great  utility  as  the  other."  Again  :  u  How 
many  meanings  are  given  to  the  word  sarx,  flesh,  in 
that  sacred  volume,  for  which  you  will  not  find  a 
single  authority  in  any  profane  writer."  And  after 
pointing  out  six  meanings  of  the  word,  he  adds : 
"  Now,  for  any  of  the  six  meanings  above  men- 
tioned, except,  perhaps,  the  first,  as  to  which  I  will 
not  be  positive,  we  may  defy  those  critics  to  produce 
classical  authority."  * 

Now,  it  is  a  fact,  that  the  word  baptizo  was  used 
by  the  pagan  Greeks,  not  only  with  reference  to 
water,  but  to  any  other  fluids  ;  whilst  the  Jews  never 

*  Prelim.  Dis.  to  Gospels,  V.  1,  pp.  3,  22,  23. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  59 

used  it  but  with  reference  to  water.  It  is  likewise  a 
fact,  that  the  pagan  Greeks  never  used  the  word  with 
reference  to  any  religious  washing ;  whilst  the 
Jews,  in  their  sacred  writings,  did  constantly  so  use 
it.  The  usage  of  the  word  amongst  pagan  Greeks, 
therefore,  proves  nothing  conclusively  concerning  its 
meaning  amongst  the  Jews. 

If,  then,  the  immersionist  expects  to  prove  his 
doctrine  by  this  word,  he  must  prove  it  by  Bible 
usage ,  not  hj  pagan  usage. 

If  these  positions  are  tenable,  (and  no  scholar 
will  controvert  them,)  a  large  part  of  the  evidence 
relied  on  by  immersionists  will  not  avail  them.  If 
they  prove  by  lexicons,  that  immerse  was  the  pri- 
mary meaning  of  baptizo,  the  answer  is,  that  words 
are  constantly  changing  their  meanings,  so  that  but 
few  are  now  used  in  their  original  sense.  If  they 
prove  that  pagan  Greeks  used  it  in  the  sense  of  im- 
mersing, the  answer  is,  that  they  also  used  it  in 
other  senses  ;  and,  moreover,  the  pagan  usage  proves 
nothing  conclusively  concerning  its  Jewish  and  Chris- 
tian usage.     We  must  come  to  the  Bible  usage. 

But  in  our  next,  we  propose  to  notice  the  lexicons 
and  classics. 


60  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


LETTER  HI. 


Dear  Sir  :  Let  us  keep  in  view  the  doctrine  you 
have  attempted  to  prove,  viz :  Not  that  immersion  is 
the  better  or  more  Scriptural  mode  of  administering 
baptism,  but  that  immersion  is  the  only  Christian 
baptism.  Against  this  doctrine,  I  have  offered  two 
arguments,  viz: 

1.  That  the  whole  Christian  world,  in  ancient  and 
modern  times,  with  the  exception  of  a  comparative 
handful,  are  arrayed  against  it ;  and  it  is  far,  very 
far,  more  probable  that  Immersionists  have  been  mis- 
led by  a  very  common  weakness  of  human  nature, 
than  that  all  other  Christians,  even  those  who  pre- 
ferred and  practiced  immersion,  should  have  wholly 
misunderstood  one  of  the  very  plainest  precepts. 

2.  That  the  claims  of  exclusive  immersion  are 
defended  upon  the  false  assumption,  that  baptism  ia 
a  specific  action.  The  very  fact,  that  its  advocates 
have  felt  obliged  to  take  a  position  so  glaringly  un- 
Scriptural,  is  evidence  of  the  weakness  of  the  cause. 

Let  us  now  examine  your  argument,  founded  upon 
the  force  of  the  word  baptizo.  This  word,  as  you 
Correctly  state,  is  a  derivative  from  bapto.  These 
two  words,  Dr.  Gale,  the  learned  Baptist  contro- 
versialist, contended,  "  are  insodunamaiy  exactly 
the  same  as  to  their  signification."  *     Carson  agreed 

•  Wall's  Hist.  V.  3,  p.  230. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM,  61 

with  him,  that,  "as  to  mode  or  frequency,5'  they 
are  identical  in  meaning.*  But  he  contended,  that 
while  bapto  has  two  meanings,  viz:  to  dip  and  to 
dye,  baptizo  ha3  but  one.f  You  agree  with  Mr. 
Carson,  that  bapto  has  two  meanings — the  one  spe- 
cific, and  the  other  generic.  J 

We  have  here  a  very  important  principle  conceded, 
viz :  that  a  word  which  was  originally  specific — 
expressing  a  specific  action — may  become  generic— 
expressing  the  thing  done,  without  regard  to  any 
particular  action,  Bapto,  you  and  Mr.  Carson  tell 
us,  originally  signified  simply  to  dip.  In  process  of 
time,  it  came  to  be  commonly  used  to  signify  to  dye 
in  any  mode,  even  by  sprinkling.  Mr.  Carson  says  : 
*'  From  signifying  to  dip,  it  came  to  signify  to  dye 
by  dipping,  etc.  And  afterwards,  from  dyeing  by 
dipping,  it  came  to  denote  dyeing  in  any  man- 
ner. A  like  process,"  he  adds,  "  might  be  shown 
in  the  history  of  a  thousand  other  words."  Nay,  he 
goes  so  far  as  to  say:  u  Bapto  signifies  to  dye  by 
sprinkling,  as  properly  as  by  dipping \  though 
originally  it  was  confined  to  the  latter."  He  goes 
farther,  and  denies  that  such  applications  of  the 
word  are  metaphorical,  as  Dr.  Gale  asserts.  "  They 
are,"  says  he,  "  as  literal  as  the  primary  meaning. 
It  is  by  extension  of  literal  meaning,  and  not  by 


*  Mode  of  Bap.,  p.  13. 

f  p.  13.  |  p.  130. 

6* 


62  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

figure  of  any  kind,  that  words  come  to  depart  so  far 
from  their  original  signification."  * 

From  these  admissions,  the  following  important 
conclusions  may  be  fairly  drawn,  viz  : 

1.  If  bapto,  from  signifying  to  dip,  came  to  sig- 
nify to  dye  in  any  ?node,  even  by  sprinkling ; 
and  if  this  latter  meaning  is  as  proper  and  as  literal 
as  the  former  ;  then  by  the  same  law  of  language,  it 
might  signify  first,  to  dip  in  water,  then  to  wet  or 
ivash  by  dipping,  then  to  wet  or  wash  in  any  mode, 
even  by  sprinkling.  We  propose  hereafter  to  prove 
that  it  has  these  latter  meanings. 

2.  On  the  same  principle  precisely,  baptizo,  if  it 
originally  signified  to  dip,  might  come  to  signify  to 
id  ash  by  dipping,  and  to  wash  or  cleanse  in  any 
mode  ;  and  this  latter  meaning  might  be  as  proper 
and  as  literal  as  the  former.  We  propose  to  prove 
that  such  is  the  truth  in  this  case. 

3.  Thus  we  easily  dispose  of  your  rather  amusing 
effort  to  prove,  that  the  syllable  bap  always  carries 
with  it  the  idea  of  dipping.  Hippocrates,  speaking 
of  the  dropping  of  a  coloring  liquid  on  garments, 
says:  "When  it  drops  upon  the  garments,  {bap- 
tetai,)  they  are  dyed."  Mr.  Carson  says:  "This 
surely,  is  not  dyeing  by  dipping."  f 

We  have  seen  that  the  overwhelming  mass  of  Chris- 
tians differ  from  exclusive  immersionists,  concerning 

*  pp,  60,  62,  64.  f  P-  60. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  63 

the  ordinance  of  baptism,  denying  that  it  is  a  specific 
action,  and  holding  that  it  may  be  validly  adminis- 
tered in  different  modes.  We  now  present  a  still 
more  formidable  fact,  viz :  All  lexicographers  are 
arrayed  against  their  position,  in  relation  to  the 
words  bapto  and  baptizo.  You  and  Mr.  Carson 
contend  that  bapto  has  only  two  meanings,  viz:  to 
dip  and  to  dye.  The  lexicons  all  assign  to  it  at 
least  three  meanings,  and  some  give  it  four.  Heder- 
icus,  Scapula,  Coulon,  and  Donnegan,  give  it  three, 
viz:  to  dip,  to  dye,  and  to  ivash,  or  cleanse. 
Schrivellius  gives  it  these  three,  together  with  a 
fourth,  viz :  to  draiv  water.  Ursinus  gives  it,  to 
dip,  to  dye,  to  cleanse,  to  sprinkle.  Groves  gives 
it,  to  dip,  to  dye,  to  wash,  to  wet,  moisten, 
sprinkle,  steep,  etc.  Stephanus  defines  it,  to  dip, 
to  dye,  to  ivash,  cleanse.  Schleusner  defines  it,  to 
dip,  to  wash  or  cleanse  by  water.* 


*  I  copy  from  the  Lexington  Debate,  the  following  definitions 
of  the  word  bapto.  I  do  so,  because  the  lexicons  here  quoted 
are  admitted  to  be  of  the  highest  authority,  and  because  Mr. 
Campbell  did  not  call  in  question  the  fairness  of  the  quota- 
tions : 

Hedericus  defines  bapto  thus  :  1.  Mergo,  immergo.  2.  Tin- 
go,  intingo.  3.  Lavo,  etc. — to  immerse,  to  plunge,  to  dye,  to 
wash,  etc. 

Scapula — Mergo,  immergo — item  tingo — inficere,  imbuere— 
item  lavo — to  immerse,  to  plunge  j  also  to  stain,  dye,  color  $ 
also  to  wash. 

Coulon — MergOj  tingo,  abluo — to  immerse,  to  dye,  to  cleanse. 


64  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

These  lexicons  you  have  have  pronounced  u  the 
most  learned  and  most  competent  witnesses  in  this 
case  in  the  world."  Of  their  authors,  you  have  tes- 
tified, that  "  these  gentlemen  are,  and  of  right 
ought  to  be,  inductive  philosophers."  You  have 
even  said,  "  There  is  no  opposing  these  lexicons."  * 
Yet  they,  with  entire  unanimity,  testify  against  Mr. 
Carson  and  you,  that  bapto  has  more  than  two 
meanings.  They,  doubtless,  are  in  the  right,  and 
you  in  the  wrong. 

But  I  must  not  omit  to  notice  the  testimony  of 
Professor  Stuart,  your  "  American  Apostle,"  whom 
you  quote  as  "  the  highest  source  of  American  the- 
ological authority."  f     He  assigns  to  bapto  the  fol- 


Ursinus—  To  dip,  to  dye,  to  wash,  to  sprinkle,  (abluo,  as- 
pergo.) 

Schrivellius — Mergo,  intingo,  lavo,  haurio,  etc. — to  dip,  to 
dye,  to  wash,  to  draw  water. 

Groves— To  dip,  plunge,  immerse,  to  wash,  to  wet,  moisten, 
sprinkle,  to  steep,  imbue,  to  dye,  etc. 

Ponnegan — To  dip,  to  plunge  into  water,  to  submerge,  to 
wash,  to  dye,  to  color — to  wash,  etc. 

These  lexicons  all  agree  in  assigning  to  bapto  three  mean- 
ings, viz:  To  to  immerse  or  dip,  to  dye  or  color,  to  wash.  One 
of  these  is  specific,  the  others  are  generic,  expressing  the 
thing  done,  but  not  the  mode  of  doing  it.  Some  of  these  lex- 
icons give  additional  meanings,  such  as  to  moisten,  to  wet,  to 
sprinkle.  How  can  the  action  of  immersion  be  prroved  by  the 
force  of  a  word  which  has  such  a  variety  of  meanings  ?  Im- 
mersionists  are  at  war  with  all  the  lexicons. 

•  Debate,  pp.  583  78.  t  P-  126. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  65 

lowing  meanings,  viz :  1.  To  dip,  to  plunge.  2.  To 
dip  out.  3.  To  dye.  4.  To  smear,  bathe  by  the 
application  of  liquid  to  the  surface.  5.  To  wash, 
i.  c,  to  cleanse  by  the  use  of  water.  6.  To  moisten, 
wet,  bedew.  Here  are  six  meanings  ;  and  yet  you 
allow  only  two!  You  will  find  it  no  very  easy 
task,  Mr.  Campbell,  to  sustain  your  cause  against 
all  the  lexicons  and  your  "  American  Apostle!" 
Their  testimony,  fairly  presented,  is  strongly  against 
you. 

But  the  lexicons  are  equally  clear  in  their  testi- 
mony against  the  immersionist  view  of  baptizo — the 
word  used  by  our  Saviour  in  instituting  the  ordinance 
of  baptism."  "  Baptizo,"  you  say,  "  indicates  a 
specific  action,  and,  consequently,  as  such,  can  have 
but  one  meaning.  For  if  a  person  or  thing  can  be 
immersed  in  water,  oil,  milk,  honey,  sand,  earth, 
debt,  grief,  affliction,  spirit,  light,  or  darkness,  etc., 
it  is  a  word  indicating  specific  action,  and  specific 
action  only."  *  Mr.  Carson  says  :  "  My  position  is, 
that  it  always  signifies  to  dip,  never  expressing 
anything  but  mode."  But  he  had  the  candor  to 
say  further:  "  Now,  as  I  have  all  the  lexicographers 
and  commentators  against  me  in  this  opinion,  it  will 
be  necessary  to  say  a  word  or  two  with  respect  to  the 
authority  of  lexicons."  f  Here  we  have  before  us 
an  edifying  discrepancy  between  two  learned  cham- 

*pp.  118, 119.  tP-79. 


66  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

pions  of  immersion  —  Mr.  Carson  defending  the 
cause  against  all  the  lexicographers,  and  Mr.  Camp- 
bell triumphantly  appealing  to  the  lexicographers  in 
support  of  it!  How  happens  this?  Did  Mr.  Car- 
son misunderstand  the  lexicons  ?  or  has  Mr.  Camp- 
bell perverted  their  testimony  ?  We  shall  see.  We 
may,  however,  say  in  advance,  that  it  is  not  probable 
that  Mr.  Carson,  whilst  searching  for  testimony, 
mistook  the  advocates  of  his  cause  for  opponents. 

You  begin  your  quotations  from  lexicons  with  "the 
venerable  Scapula."  He,  as  you  admit,  defines 
baptizo  to  dip,  to  immerse  ;  also  to  submerge  ;  also 
to  wash,  to  cleanse.  Stephanus  agrees  with  Scap- 
ula. The  Thesaurus  of  Robertson,  which  you  pro- 
nounce the  most  comprehensive  dictionary  you  have 
ever  seen,  defines  baptizo  by  two  words,  viz  :  mergo 
and  lavo — to  immerse  and  to  ivash.  Schleusner 
defines  it,  first,  to  immerse  in  water ;  and  secondly, 
to  wash,  or  cleanse  with  water,  {abluo,  lavo,  aqua 
pur  go.)  Pasor,  whose  testimony  Mr.  Campbell 
does  not  give  fairly,  defines  it  both  to  immerse  and 
to  wash — abluo,  lavo.  Hedericus  gives  the  same 
definitions.  Bretschneider,  who,  as  you  justly  say, 
is  "  said  to  be  the  most  critical  lexicographer  of  the 
New  Testament,"  gives  the  general  meaning  thus : 
Proprie,  saepius  intingo,  ssepius  lavo;  deinde  1) 
lavo  abluo,  simpliciter,  etc. — cum  sig.  med :  lavo 
me,  abluo  me,  etc.,  2)  immergo  in  aquas,  etc. — 
Properly  often  to  immerse,  often  to  wash ;  then  to 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  67 

wash,  cleanse,  simply ;  in  the  middle  voice,  I  -wash, 
I  cleanse  myself,  etc.,  2.)  To  immerse  in  -water, 
etc.  Suidas  not  only  defines  it  to  immerse,  but  to 
wet,  wash,  cleanse,  (madefacio,  lavo,  abluo,  purgo, 
mundo.)  Stokius  defines  it  both  to  immerse  and 
to  wash.  Robinson  defines  it  to  immerse,  to  sink ; 
but  in  the  New  Testament,  first,  to  wash,  to  cleanse 
by  washing.* 


*  The  following  definitions  of  baptizo,  by  the  most  cele- 
brated lexicons,  I  copy  from  my  first  speech  in  the  Lexington 
Debate  : 

Scapula,  one  of  the  old  lexicographers  to  whom  Mr.  C.  ap- 
pealed, thus  defines  the  word  baptizo  :  "  Mergo,  seu  immergo  ; 
Item  tingo  :  ut  quae  tingendi  aut  abluendi  gratia  immergimus — 
Item  mergo,  submergo,  obruo  aqua ;  Item  abluo,  lavo,  (Mark  7, 
Luke  11,) — to  dip  or  immerse  ;  also  to  dye,  as  we  immerse  things 
for  the  purpose  of  coloring  or  washing  them  ;  also,  to  plunge, 
submerge,  to  cover  with  water  ;  also,  to  cleanse,  to  wash." 
(Mark  7,  Luke  11.)  Baptismos,  he  thus  defines:  "  Mersio, 
lotio,  ablutio,  ipse  immergendi,  item  lavandi  seu  abluendi  ac- 
tus." (Mark  7,  etc.)  Immersion,  washing,  cleansing,  the 
act  itself  of  immersing;  also  of  washing,  or  cleansing,.  (Mark 
7,  etc.) 

Hedericus  thus  defines  baptizo  :  1.  "  Mergo,  immergo,  aqua 
abruo.  2.  Abluo,  lavo.  3.  Baptizo,  significatu  sacro" — To 
dip,  immerse,  to  cover  with  water ;  2.  To  cleanse,  to  wash ;  3. 
To  baptize  in  a  sacred  sense. 

Stephanus  defines  it  thus :  "  Mergo,  seu  immergo,  ut  quae 
tingendi  aut  abluendi  gratia  aqua  immergimus — Mergo,  sub- 
mergo, obruo  aqua;  abluo,  lavo" — To  dip,  immerse,  as  we 
immerse  things  for  the  purpose  of  coloring  or  washing ;  to 
merge,  submerge,  to  cover  with  water ;  to  cleanse,  to  wash. 

Schleusner  defines  baptizo,  not  only  to  plunge,  immerse, 


68  MODE  OP  BAPTISM. 

What,  then,  is  the  amount  of  the  evidence  from 
the  lexicons  ?  With  remarkable  unanimity,  they  give 
to  baptizo  at  least  two  meanings,  viz :  to  immerse 
and  to  wash.  Some  of  them  give  a  third — to  wet. 
One  of  these  meanings  expresses  specific  action,  the 
other  two,  viz :  to  wash  and  to  wet,  are  generic, 
expressive  of  the  thing  done,  and  not  of  the  mode 
of  doing  it.  How  much  do  the  lexicons  prove  in 
favor  of  the  exclusive  claims  of  immersion  ? 

Most  of  them  favor  the  opinion,  that  immerse 
was  the  -primary  or  original  meaning  of  baptizo. 
But  since  it  is  acknowledged,  not  only  that  almost 
all  words  have  more  than  one  meaning,  but  that  mul- 
titudes of  words  have  entirely  lost  their  original 
meaning,  the  question  arises,  (and  this  question  the 

but  to  cleanse,  wash,  to  purify  with  water  ;  (abluo,  lavo,  aqua 
purgo.) 

Parkharst  defines  it :  "  To  immerse  in  or  wash  with  water  in 
token  of  purification." 

Robinson  defines  it :  "  To  immerse,  to  sink ;  for  example, 
spoken  of  ships,  galleys,  etc.  In  the  New  Testament,  to  wash, 
to  cleanse  by  washing;  to  wash  one's  self,  to  bathe,  perform 
ablution,"  etc. 

Schrivellius  defines  it:  "  Baptizo,  mergo,  abluo,  lavo — to  bap- 
tize, to  immerse,  to  cleanse,  to  wash." 

Groves:  "To  dip,  immerse,  immerge,  plunge;  to  wash,  to 
cleanse,  purify — Baptizomai,  to  wash  one's  self,  bathe,"  etc. 

Bretschneider  :  "  Propria?  sepius  intingo,  sepius  lavo  ;  deinde 
(1)  lavo,  abluo  simpliciter — medium,  etc  ;  lavo  me,  abluo  me  :  " 
properly  often  to  dip,  often  to  wash;  then  (1)  simply  to  wash, 
to  cleanse  ;  in  the  middle  voice,  "  I  wash  or  cleanse  myself." 

Suidas  defines  baptizo,  not  only  to  sink,  plunge,  immerse,  but 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  69 

lexicons  do  not  settle,)  whether  the  Saviour  and  the 
apostles  used  this  word  in  its  original  sense.  The 
lexicons  all  give  to  baptizo  another  meaning,  which 
is  generic,  viz:  to  wash  or  cleanse^  without  regard 
to  mode.  How  are  we  to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  a 
word  in  any  particular  case  ?  Mr.  Campbell  gives 
the  following  rule:  "If  it  have  but  one  meaning, 
testimony  or  the  dictionary  decides  it  at  once ;  but 
if  it  have  more  meanings  than  one,  the  proximate 
words  used  in  construction  with  it,  usually  called  the 
context,  together  with  the  design  of  the  speaker  or 
writer,  must  decide  its  meaning."*  The  lexicons  tell 


to   wet,  wash,  cleanse,  purify,  etc.,    (madefacio_  lavo,  abluo. 
purgo,  mundo.) 

Wahl  defines  it,  first :  To  wash,  perform  ablution.,  cleanse  j 
secondly,  to  immerse,  etc. 

Greenfield  defines  it :  To  immerse,  immerge,  submerge,  sink  | 
and  in  the  New  Testament,  to  wash,  perform  ablution,  cleanse  5 
to  immerse. 

In  his  first  speech.  Mr.  Campbell  quoted  the  Thesaurus  of 
Robertson,  of  which  he  said  :  "  It  is  the  most  comprehensive 
dictionary  I  have  ever  seen;"  and  again  :  "His  definitions  are 
generally  regarded  as  the  most  precise  and  accurate."  Mr. 
Campbell  says :  f:  He  defines  baptizo  by  only  two  words — ■ 
mergo  and  lavo."  One  of  these  words  is  specific,  signifying 
to  immerse;  the  other  is  generic,  signifying  to  wash,  ex- 
pressing the  thing  done,  but  not  the  mode  of  doing  it.  For 
it  is  admitted  that  washing  may  be  performed  by  pouring, 
as  well  as  by  immersion.  So  that  "  the  most  precise  and 
accurate  lexicographer"  is  against  immersionists,  who  assert 
that  eaptizo  has  but  one  meaning. 

*  Chris.  Restored,  pp.  24,  25, 

T 


70  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

us,  contrary  to  the  assertion  of  Mr.  Campbell,  that 
this  word  has  more  than  one  meaning  ;  and  Mr. 
Campbell  himself  tells  us,  correctly,  that  in  all  such 
cases  the  context,  etc.,  must  determine  which  of  its 
meanings  any  word  has  in  any  given  case.  For 
example,  when  it  is  said,  that  "  the  feet  of  the 
priests  who  bore  the  ark  in  crossing  Jordan,  were 
dipped  in  the  brim  of  the  water,"  *  the  context  leaves 
no  doubt  in  what  sense  the  word  bapto  is  used.  And 
when  Hippocrates  says  of  a  coloring  fluid,  "  when 
it  drops  upon  the  garments,  (baptetai,)  they  are 
dyed,"  the  meaning  is  equally  plain.  Just  so,  we 
must  ascertain  from  the  passages  in  which  baptizo 
occurs  in  the  Bible,  in  what  sense  it  is  used. 

But  Mr.  Campbell  says:  "We  have,  then,  the 
unanimous  testimony  of  all  the  distinguished  lex- 
icographers known  in  Europe  and  America,  that  the 
proper,  and  everywhere  current  signification  of  bap- 
tizo, the  word  chosen  by  Jesus  Christ  in  the  com- 
mission to  his  apostles,  is  to  dip,  plunge,  or  immerse; 
and  that  any  other  meaning  is  tropical,  rhetorical, 
or  fanciful."  This  statement  is  wholly  incorrect. 
The  lexicons,  most  of  them,  give  immerse  or  plunge 
as  the  original  meaning  of  the  word  :  but  they  do 
not  say  that  this  is  the  "  everywhere  current  signifi- 
cation." On  the  contrary,  they  assert,  that  it  has 
other  meanings,  and  most  of  them  find  those   other 

*  Josh.  % :  15. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  71 

meanings  in  the  Bible.  They  do  not  say  that  any 
other  meaning  is  "  tropical,  rhetorical,  or  fanciful." 
Almost  every  lexicon  defines  the  word  to  wash  in  a 
literal  sense.  The  word  tropical,  as  used  by  critics 
with  reference  to  the  meaning  of  words,  means 
merely  secondary.  Thus,  the  tropical  meaning  of 
the  word  prevent  is  to  hinder ;  its  original  or 
literal  meaning,  to  come  before.  In  this  sense,  to 
wash  may  be  the  tropical  meaning  of  bajitizo.  But 
as  a  man  would  make  himself  ridiculous  by  contend- 
ing that  the  word  prevent,  in  a  legal  document  writ- 
ten a  few  years  since,  must  mean  to  come  before, 
simply  because  such  was  its  original  meaning  ;  so 
does  Mr.  C.  render  himself  equally  ridiculous,  when 
he  contends,  that  because  the  original  meaning  of 
baptizo  was  to  immerse,  therefore  our  Saviour  used 
it  in  that  sense.  He  here  very  quietly  assumes,  what 
every  scholar  knows  to  be  untrue,  and  what  he  him- 
self has  elsewhere  declared  untrue,  that  the  orig- 
inal meaning  of  the  word  must,  of  course,  be  its 
true  meaning  in  all  time  and  in  all  cases. 

But  he  says :  "  It  is  with  the  proper  and  unfigura- 
tive,  and  not  with  the  fanciful  and  rhetorical  mean- 
ing of  words,  we  have  to  do,  in  all  positive  institu- 
tions ;  "  and  he  quotes  Blackstone  as  follows  :  "  The 
words  of  a  law  are  generally  to  be  understood  in 
their  usual  and  most  known  significations — not  so 
much  regarding  the  propriety  of  grammar,  as  their 
general  and  popular  use,"  etc.     All  true ;  but  what 


72  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

is  "  the  proper  and  unfigurative  meaning  of  words  ? " 
Is  it  uniformly  or  commonly  their  original  or  literal 
meaning  ?  Mr.  Campbell  shall  answer  the  question. 
He  quotes,  with  approbation,  the  following  from 
Professor  Stuart:  "The  literal  sense  (of  a  word) 
is  the  same  as  the  primitive  or  oiginal  sense  ;  or, 
at  least,  it  is  equivalent  to  that  sense  which  has 
usurped  the  place  of  the  original  one.  For  example, 
the  original  sense  of  the  word  tragedy  has  long 
ceased  to  be  current ;  and  the  literal  sense  of  this 
word  now,  is  that  which  has  taken  the  place  of  the 
original  one.5'*  The  proper  and  literal  meaning  of 
a  word,  therefore,  is  that  meaning  which  is  most 
commonly  assigned  to  it;  and,  accordingly,  Black- 
stone  does  not  say,  that  words  are  to  be  understood 
in  their  original  or  primary  sense,  but  in  "  their 
usual  and  most  known  signification."'  Now,  we 
maintain,  and  are  prepared  to  prove,  that  to  ivash, 
cleanse ,  was  the  usual  and  most  known  signification 
of  baptizo  among  the  Jews,  when  our  Saviour  in- 
stituted baptism. 

But  suppose  we  try  Mr.  Campbell's  precept  of 
adhering  to  the  "  proper,  original,  and  primitive 
sense "  of  words  in  the  interpretation  of  laws. 
Blackstone  mentions  a  law,  which  forbade  any  man 
"  to  lay  hands  on  a  priest;"  and  another,  which 
enacted,  "  that  whoever  drew  blood  in  the  streets, 


*Chris.  Restored,  p.  26. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  73 

should  be  punished  with  the  utmost  severity."  There 
was  a  long  debate,  whether  this  latter  law  extended 
to  a  surgeon  who  opened  the  vein  of  a  person  that 
fell  down  in  the  street  in  a  fit.  According  to  Mr. 
Campbell's  principle  of  interpretation,  the  doctor 
must  have  suffered.  Or  perhaps  he  might  have 
escaped  on  the  ground  that  the  original  meaning  of 
the  word  draw  is  to  pull  along  ;  and  then  the  man 
who  hauled  a  load  of  slaughtered  hogs  through  the 
streets,  would  have  incurred  the  penalty !  There 
was  a  law  in  England,  forbidding  "  all  ecclesiastical 
persons  to  purchase  provisions  at  Rome."  Now, 
since  the  primary  meaning  of  the  word  provision  is, 
"  the  act  of  providing  beforehand,"  what  would  be 
the  meaning  of  the  law,  interpreted  according  to  Mr. 
Campbell's  principles  ?  Usage,  as  all  interpreters 
maintain,  must  determine  the  meaning  of  words. 

The  lexicons,  then,  not  only  afford  the  cause  of 
immersion  no  assistance  ;  they  actually  contradict 
the  position  which  exclusive  immersionists  have  felt 
constrained  to  take,  viz  :  that  haptizo  is  a  specific 
word,  and  has  but  one  meaning.  They  declare,  that 
though  it  sometimes  expresses  the  act  of  immersion, 
it  also  expresses  cleansing  without  regard  to  mode. 
They  prove  nothing  in  favor  of  immersion. 


7* 


MODE  OF  BAPTISE 


LETTER  IV. 


Dear  Sin  :  We  have  offered  three  arguments 
against  the  doctrine,  that  immersion  is  the  only 
Christian  baptism,  viz  : 

I.  The  utmost  universal  voice  of  Christendom,  in 
ancient  and  in  modern  times,  is  against  it.  Almost 
all  those  who  have  practiced  immersion,  and  those 
who  have  practiced  pouring  or  sprinkling,  have  un- 
derstood the  Scriptures  to  teach,  that  the  ordinance' 
of  baptism  is  one  thing,  and  the  mode  of  adminis- 
tration another ;  and  that  the  latter  is  not  essential  to 
the  former. 

II.  The  unscriptural  position  to  which  exclusive 
immersionists  have  been  driven — that  baptism  is  an 
action-^ — affords  presumptive  evidence  against  them. 
The  defense  of  the  truth  is  not  likely  to  drive  its 
advocates  into  serious  error. 

III.  The  lexicons,  admitted  to  be  very  high  author- 
ity, with  remarkable  unanimity  testify  against  the 
position  of  immersionists — that  baptizo  has  but  one 
meaning,  and  expresses  specifically  the  action  of 
immersing.  They  give  to  bapto,  the  root,  three  or 
four  meanings,  only  one  of  which  expresses  specific 
action,  the  others  being  generic  ;  and  to  baptizo, 
they  give  two,  three,  or  more  meanings — to  dip, 
sink,  plunge — to  wash,  cleanse  with  water — to  wet, 
etc,     Of  these  meanings,  only  the  first  is  specific ; 


MODE  OP  BAPTISM.  75 

the  others  express  the  thing  done,  but  not  the  mode 
of  doing  it.  If  the  lexicons  give  dip  as  the  pri- 
mary or  original  meaning  of  the  word,  this  proves 
nothing  for  immersion,  because  it  is  admitted  that 
words  are  constantly  changing  their  meaning ;  and 
very  many  of  them  have  entirely  lost  their  original 
meaning.  The  testimony  of  the  lexicons,  therefore, 
is  decidedly  unfavorable  to  the  exclusive  doctrine  you 
advocate — inasmuch  as  they  make  baptizo  a  generic 
term,  expressing  washing  or  cleansing  in  any  mode, 
as  well  as  a  specific  term,  expressing  immersion. 
Immersionists  affirm  that  this  word  has  but  one 
meaning  ;  and,  therefore,  it  definitely  requires  the 
action  of  immersing.  The  lexicons  declare  that  it 
has  more  than  one  meaning,  and  is  often  a  generic 
term. 

Now,  the  question  arises :  In  which  of  these  senses 
did  our  Saviour  employ  it  ?  Did  he  use  it  in  the 
specific  sense  of  dipping,  or  in  the  generic  sense  of 
washing,  cleansing  ?  As  we  have  stated  hereto- 
fore, baptism  is  represented  in  the  Scriptures  as  an 
ablution ;  and  this  fact  you  have  not  only  admitted, 
but  asserted.  It  is  probable,  therefore,  that  our 
Lord  used  the  word  baptizo  in  the  sense  of  washing, 
thus  expressing  the  design  of  the  ordinance. 

But  it  has  been  proposed  to  settle  this  question  by 
ascertaining  what  meaning  the  pagan  Greeks  assigned 
to  the  words  bapto  and  baptizo.  We  are  prepared 
to  go  into  this  inquiry,  and  to  prove  that  what  is 


76  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

called  classic  usage  does  not  sustain  the  claims  of 
exclusive  immersion. 

1.  As  to  bapto,  Mr.  Carson  admits  that  it  signi- 
fies, not  only  to  dip,  but  to  dye  in  any  manner,  even 
by  sprinkling,  and  that  this  latter  meaning  is  as 
literal  and  proper  as  the  former.  He  gives  the  fol- 
lowing amongst  other  examples  :  Homer,  in  his  Battle 
of  Frogs  and  Mice,  says — "  He  (the  frog)  breath- 
less fell,  and  the  lake  (ebapteto)  was  baptized 
with  his  blood."  Strangely  enough,  Dr.  Gale  ear- 
nestly contended  that  the  literal  sense  is,  "  the  lake 
was  dipped  in  blood;55  but  he  adds,  "the  figure 
only  means,  it  was  colored  as  highly  as  anything  that 
is  dipped  in  blood.55  This  perversion  was  too  glar- 
ing ;  and,  therefore,  Mr.  Carson  went  so  far  as  to 
give  up  the  idea  of  dipping  in  this  passage.  But 
unwilling  to  admit  anything  in  favor  of  pouring  or 
sprinkling,  he  placed  the  passage  on  the  neutral 
list,  contending  that  it  "  favors  neither  the  one  party 
nor  the  other,55  but  signifies  u  dyeing  without  refer- 
ence to  mode.55  It  is  impossible,  however,  to  evade 
the  conclusion,  that  bapto  expresses  the  application 
of  a  fluid  by  dropping  or  sprinkling.  Aristotle 
speaks  of  a  substance  which,  being  pressed,  {baptei) 
baptizes  the  hand.  "Surely,55  says  Carson,  "there 
is  no  reference  to  dipping  here.55  Aristophanes  says  : 
"  Magnes,  an  old  comic  of  Athens,  used  the  Lydian 
music,  shaved  his  face,  and  baptized  (baptomenos) 
his  face  with  tawny  washes.55     "  Now,  surely,"  says 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  77 

Carson,  "  baptomenos  here  has  no  reference  to  its 
primary  meaning.  Nor  is  it  used  figuratively.  The 
face  of  the  person  was  rubbed  with  the  wash.  By 
anything  implied  or  referred  to  in  this  example,  it 
could  not  be  known  that  bapto  ever  signifies  to 
dip."  * 

The  word  bapto  also  signifies  to  wash  with  water, 
without  regard  to  mode.  Aristophanes  says  :  ''First, 
they  wash  (baptousi)  the  wool  in  warm  water, 
according  to  the  old  custom."  The  lexicographers — 
Suidas  and  Phavorinus — says  Professor  Stuart,  in- 
interpret  the  word  here,  by  plunoicsi,  they  wash  or 
wash  out.  He  adds:  "  This  shade  of  meaning  is 
not  unfrequent  in  the  sacred  writers,  though  seldom, 
so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  discover,  to  be  met  with 
in  profane  writers." 

Bapto  is  also  used  frequently  by  profane,  as  well 
as  sacred  writers,  in  the  sense  of  partial  dipping 
or  wetting.  Suidas  speaks  of  a  person  scourged 
before  the  tribunal — "  and  flowing  with  blood,  hav- 
ing wetted  (bapsas)  the  hollow  of  his  hand,  he 
sprinkles  it  on  the  judgment  seat."  This  can  scarcely 
be  regarded  as  even  a  partial  dipping.  iElian  speaks 
of  dipping  (bapsas}  a  crown  of  roses  into  ointment. 
The  idea  of  immersion  here  is  out  of  the  question. 
An  odoriferous  ointment  was  put  upon  the  crown  to 
increase  its   fragrance.       Jamblicus,   in   his   life   of 

*  Mode  of  Baptism,  p.  64. 


78  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

Pythagoras,  speaks  of  one  of  his  directions  to  his 
disciples,  not  to  dip  or  wash  in  the  perirantarion, 
(embaptein.)  Mr.  Carson  admits,  that  the  peri- 
rantarion  was  too  small  for  dipping  the  body  ;  and 
he  would  save  the  cause  of  immersion  by  supplying 
a  very  lengthy  elipsis,  as  follows :  "  Do  not  dip  the 
sprinkling  instrument,  in  order  to  purify  !  "  That 
j?urification  is  the  thing  referred  to,  Mr.  Carson 
acknowledges  ;  but  he  insists  on  a  most  extraordinary 
elipsis  to  avoid  the  plain  truth,  that  bajjto  is  here 
used  in  a  generic  sense,  without  reference  to  mode. 
Mr.  Carson  quotes  from  Hippocrates  the  following : 
"  Taking  lead  and  the  magnetic  stone,  rub  them 
smooth,  and  tie  them  in  a  rag  ;  then  having  dipped 
(embapsas}  them  in  breast  milk,  apply  them."  Can 
any  one  doubt  that  what  was  required,  was  simply  to 
wet  the  rag  containing  the  lead  and  stone  with  breast 
milk? 

But  as  we  have  seen  that  the  usage  of  pagans  is 
a  very  uncertain  guide  in  determining  the  meaning 
of  a  word  amongst  the  Jews,  which  was  used  to 
express  a  religious  truth,  or  designate  a  religious 
ordinance,  let  us  examine  the  word  bapto,  as  it  is 
used  in  the  Bible.  It  occurs  frequently  in  the  Old 
Testament,  but  very  rarely  in  the  sense  of  immers- 
ing— more  generally  in  the  sense  of  partial  dip- 
Jiing,  moistening,  wetting.  In  Levit.  14:  6,  in 
the  law  concerning  the  cleansing  of  the  leper,  it  is 
directed  that  two  birds  shall  be  taken,  one  of  which 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  79 

shall  be  killed  in  an  earthen  vessel  over  running 
water:  "  xis  for  the  living  bird,  he  shall  take  it5 
and  the  cedar  wood,  and  the  scarlet,  and  the  hys- 
sop, and  shall  dip  them  (bapsei)  and  the  living  bird 
in  the  blood  of  the  bird  that  was  killed  over  the 
running  water."  Here  immersion  was  absolutely 
impossible. 

In  several  instances,  the  preposition  (apo)  which 
follows  bapto,  proves  that  it  is  not  used  in  the  sense 
of  dipping.  "  The  priest  shall  moisten  (bap set) 
his  finger  apo  ton  aimatos — from  or  by  means  of 
the  blood  of  the  bullock."  *  "  And  he  shall  mois- 
ten (bapsei)  his  right  finger  with  (apo)  the  oil."  f 
"  And  moistening  (the  bundle  of  hyssop)  with  the 
blood,  (bapsantes  apo  tou  aimatos" J)  When 
the  reader  remembers  that  the  word  apo  is  the  same 
which  in  Matt.  3:  16,  is  translated  "  out  of" — a 
translation  quite  pleasing  to  immersionists — he  will 
be  satisfied  that  the  idea  of  immersion  cannot  be 
admitted.  Things  may  be  immersed  into  a  fluid  ; 
but  certainly  they  cannot  be  immersed  from  or  out 
of  a  fluid. 

But  the  most  difficult  passage  with  which  immer- 
sionists have  to  contend,  is  in  Dan.  4:  25-33,  where 
it  is  said,  Nebuchadnezzar  was  driven  from  men,  and 
did  eat  grass  as  oxen,  and  his  body  was  wet  ivith 
(ebaphe  apo)  the  dew  of  heaven.     Two  very  stub- 

*  Lev.  4:  17.  f  Lev.  14  :  16.  f  Exod.  12  ;  22. 


80  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

born  difficulties  here  present  themselves,  viz  :  1st. 
To  discover  how  a  man  could  be  plunged  or  im- 
mersed into  dew  ;  and  2d.  To  see  how  such  immer- 
sion could  be  expressed  by  the  words  ebaphe  apo— 
immersed  from  dew.  Drs.  Gale  and  Cox  contended 
that  the  inspired  writer  referred  to  the  copiousness 
of  the  dews  in  that  country,  and  that  he  intended  to 
say,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  was  as  wet  as  if  he  had 
been  dipped  in  deiv.  u  It  does  not,"  says  Dr. 
Cox,  "  imply  the  manner  in  which  the  effect  was 
produced,  but  the  effect  itself — not  the  mode  by 
which  the  body  of  the  King  was  wetted,  but  its  con- 
dition, as  resulting  from  exposure  to  the  dew  of 
heaven.5'  But  Mr.  Carson  thought  that,  in  giving 
such  an  interpretation  of  the  word,  the  point  was 
given  up  in  favor  of  the  Pedo-baptist.  "  Without 
doubt,"  says  he,  "  the  verb  expresses  mode  here  as 
well  as  anywhere  else.  To  suppose  the  contrary, 
gives  up  the  point  at  issue,  as  far  as  mode  is  con- 
cerned. This,  in  fact,  makes  bapto  signify  simply 
to  ivet,  without  reference  to  mode."*  He  pleads 
for  poetic  license,  in  order  to  make  Daniel  say  that 
Nebuchadnezzar  was  immersed  in  dew.  "  A  soul- 
less critic,"  says  he,  u  will  reply,  '  there  was  here 
no  literal  immersion ;  the  word  cannot,  then,  be 
used  in  that  sense.'  Were  we  to  pass  through  the 
poets,  conforming  their  language  to  this   observa- 

#p.  45, 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  81 

tlon,  what  havoc  should  we  make  of  their  beauties: 
How  dull  and  lifeless  would  become  their  animated 
expressions  !  "  *  Mr.  Campbell  agrees  with  Mr.  Car- 
son in  regarding  the  expression  u  as  rhetorically, 
poetically,  or,  if  you  please,  symbolically,  pictur- 
esque, and  graphic;"  and  he  thinks  the  immortal 
Milton  "  caught  his  bold  and  beautiful  flight  from 
this  passage,  in  which  he  sings— 

*  A  cold  shuddering  dew  dips  me  all  over.' '' 

Now,  unfortunately  for  these  gentlemen,  Daniel 
was  not  writing  poetry  ;  neither  was  he  making  any 
display  of  rhetoric;  nor  was  he  talking  symboli- 
cally ;  nor  yet  was  he  telling,  in  hyperbolical  lan- 
guage, how  very  ivet  Nebuchadnezzar  was,  whilst 
exposed  to  the  open  skies.  He  was  giving  a  per- 
fectly plain  narrative  of  facts  in  the  history  of  that 
king.  The  attempt,  therefore,  to  sustain  the  cause 
of  immersion  by  converting  simple  narrative  into  one 
of  the  boldest  flights  of  poetry,  only  proves  the 
more  clearly  how  impossible  it  is  to  sustain  it  at  all. 
To  the  unprejudiced  mind,  it  is  clear,  beyond  a 
doubt,  that  the  word  bapto  is  here  used  in  the  gen- 
eral sense  of  wetting,  and  of  wetting  by  the  gentle 
distillation  of  dew. 

Another  passage  has  presented  serious  difficulty 
in  the  way  of  immersionists :  "  And  he  was  clothed 

|  pp.  42,  43, 


82  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

with  a  vesture  dipped  (bebammenon)  in  blood.55* 
The  idea  is  that  of  a  warrior  whose  garments  have 
been,  in  the  conflict,  sprinkled  or  stained  with  the 
blood  of  his  enemies.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact,  that 
Origen,  the  most  learned  of  the  Greek  fathers, 
citing  this  passage  almost  verbatim ,  has  the  word 
errantismenon,  sprinkled,  instead  of  bebamme~ 
non.  It  is  a  fact  of  even  greater  importance,  (and 
it  is  stated  by  Dr.  Gale,)  that  the  Syriac  and 
iEthiopic  versions,  "  which  for  their  antiquity/5 
says  Dr.  Gale,  "  must  be  thought  almost  as  valuable 
and  authentic  as  the  original  itself,  being  made  from 
primitive  copies,  in  or  very  near  the  times  of  the 
apostles,55  translated  tne  word  bapto  here  by  a  word 
signifying  to  sprinkle.  The  Latin  Vulgate  also  has 
it  aspersa,  sprinkled,  with  blood.  There  are  but 
two  ways  of  accounting  for  these  facts,  viz :  1st.  By 
supposing  that  the  word  rantizo  was  the  true  read- 
ing, and  that  the  text  was  afterwards  corrupted  by 
inserting  the  word  bapto,  and,  therefore,  Origen 
quoted  it  thus,  and  the  authors  of  those  versions 
gave  a  corresponding  translation.  2.  By  admitting 
that  Origen  and  those  translators  understood  the 
word  bapto,  in  this  passage,  as  meaning  to  sprinkle. 
The  first  supposition  is  adopted  by  Dr.  Gale  and  Mr. 
Campbell ;  but  there  is  not  one  particle  of  evidence 
in  support  of  it.     It  is  not  pretended  that  a  single 

*  Rev.  9  :  12 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  83 

copy  of  the  Greek  Testament,  ancient  or  modern, 
has  the  reading  which  these  gentlemen  have  imag- 
ined. It  may  be  noted  as  an  evidence  of  the 
burning  zeal  of  some  of  the  leading  advocates  of 
immersion,  that  they  have  been  willing  to  alter  the 
word  of  God,  in  order  to  sustain  their  peculiar 
views !  Mr.  Carson,  however,  could  not  venture  on 
a  step  so  desperate.  After  noticing  Dr.  Gale's 
reasons  for  believing  the  text  corrupted,  he  says : 
li  These  reasons,  however,  do  not,  in  the  least,  bring 
the  common  reading  into  suspicion  in  my  mind,  and 
I  will  never  adopt  a  reading  to  serve  a  purpose."  * 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  Origen  and  the  translators 
of  the  Syriac,  the  iEthiopic  and  Yulgate  versions, 
did  believe  that  in  this  passage  bapto  means  to 
sprinkle.  And  they,  let  it  be  noted,  lived  in  an  age 
when,  if  we  are  to  believe  the  advocates  of  immer- 
sion, all  Christians  were  decided  immersionists.  Be- 
sides, they  lived  when  the  Greek  was  a  living 
language,  which  they  were  accustomed  to  read  and 
hear  constantly. 

We  may  -admire  the  prudence  displayed  by  Mr. 
Campbell,  in  his  late  work,  in  passing  these  two  very 
difficult  passages  without  remark.  In  the  Lexington 
Debate,  they  gave  him  trouble.  In  the  work  we  are 
now  reviewing,  he  has  thought  it  wise  not  to  attempt 
to  meet  the  difficulties  again,  but  rather  to  keep  them 
out  of  view. 


p.  37 


84  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

We  may  now  leave  the  candid  reader  to  decide, 
whether  the  action  of  immersion  can  be  proved  from 
the  force  of  bapto — a  word  signifying  sometimes 
a  complete  submersion ;  sometimes  a  partial  dipping  ; 
sometimes  dyeing  in  any  mode  ;  sometimes  wetting 
or  moistening ;  sometimes  sprinkling.  It  is  some- 
times specific;  oftener  it  expresses  that  which  is 
done,  either  dyeing,  or  wetting,  or  washing,  without 
regard  to  mode. 

In  our  next,  we  propose  briefly  to  examine  the 
usage  of  Pagan,  Jewish,  and  Christian  writers,  in 
regard  to  the  word  baptizo. 


LETTER  Y. 

Dear  Sir  :  The  cause  of  immersion  gains  nothing 
by  the  authority  of  the  lexicons,  or  by  general  usage 
of  the  word  bapto.  Let  us  now  inquire  into  the 
meaning  of  baptizo,  as  used  by  the  profane  Greeks 
and  the  Jews. 

1.  It  is  frequently  used  in  the  sense  of  sinking. 
Strabo,  speaking  of  a  lake  near  Agrigentum,  says : 
"  Things  that  elsewhere  cannot  float,  do  not  sink?* 
(baptizesthai.)  Again,  he  says  of  a  certain  river: 
"  If  one  shoots  an  arrow  into  it,  the  force  of  the 
water  resists  it  so  much,  that  it  will  scarcely  sink?* 
{baptizesthaL)    Hippocrates >  says  Carson,  applies 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  85 

it  to  a  ship  sinking  by  being  overburdened — "  Shall  I 
not  laugh  at  the  man  who  baptises  or  sinks  his  ship 
by  overburdening  it,"  etc.,  (baptisonta.)  Dio- 
dorus  Siculus  applies  it  to  the  sinking  of  beasts 
carried  away  by  a  river — < '  The  most  of  land  animals 
being  caught  by  the  river,  sinking,  perish,"  (bap- 
tizomena.)  Josephus  frequently  uses  the  word  in 
the  same  sense,  as,  for  example:  "  After  this  mis- 
fortune of  Cestius,  many  of  the  Jews  of  distinction 
left  the  city,  as  people  swim  away  from  a  sinking 
ship,"  (baptizomenes .)  Again,  speaking  of  the 
storm  that  threatened  the  destruction  of  the  ship 
which  carried  Jonah,  he  says  :  "  When  the  ship  was 
on  the  point  of  sinking"  etc.,  {baptizesthai.} 
Indeed,  in  much  the  larger  number  of  examples 
quoted  by  immersionists,  the  word  means,  and  is 
translated,  to  sink. 

2,  Baptizo  is  used  to  signify  the  overflowing  of 
land  by  the  tide.  Aristotle  says  :  "  The  Phoenicians, 
who  inhabit  Cadiz,  relate,  that  sailing  beyond  Her- 
cules' Pillars,  in  four  days,  with  the  wind  at  East, 
they  came  to  a  land  uninhabited,  whose  coast  was 
full  of  sea- weeds,  and  not  baptized  (baptizesthai) 
at  ebb ;  but  when  the  tide  comes  in,  it  is  wholly 
covered,5'  etc.  This  passage  will  not  suit  Mr.  Camp- 
bell ;  for  he  is  laboring  to  prove,  that  baptizo 
expresses  the  specific  action  of  immersing;  but 
even  he  will  scarcely  contend  that  the  land  was 
plunged  into  the  water.     He,  therefore,  sets  this 

a* 


86  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

down  as  an  example  of  the  figurative  use  of  the 
word,  and  translates  it  overflowed!  Now,  Mr. 
Campbell,  by  what  principle  of  language  do  you 
make  the  overfloiving  of  land  figurative  plunging 
or  immersing  ?  Dr.  Gale  tried  to  escape  in  ano- 
ther way.  He  says:  "Besides,  the  word  baptizo, 
perhaps,  does  not  so  necessarily  express  the  action  of 
putting  under  water,  as  in  genera]  a  thing's  being  in 
that  condition,  no  matter  how  it  comes  so,  whether  it 
is  put  into  the  water,  or  the  water  comes  over  it," 
etc.*  Now,  this  admission  is  fatal  to  the  great 
argument  on  which  immersionists  rely  for  the  support 
of  their  cause,  viz  :  that  baptizo  is  a  specific  word, 
definitely  expressing  the  action  of  putting  under 
water.  For,  if  Dr.  Gale  is  right,  then  if  a  person 
were  covered  with  water  by  pouring,  he  would  be 
baptized.  But  Mr.  Carson  says  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar :  "  If  all  the  water  in  the  ocean  had  fallen 
on  him,  it  would  not  have  been  a  literal  immer- 
sion." t  He,  therefore,  admires  the  beautiful  figure 
which  he  finds  in  this  passage,  whilst  the  equally 
learned  Dr.  Gale  contents  himself  with  the  remark,, 
that  u  the  place  makes  nothing  at  all  for  our  ad- 
versaries." 

3.  Bajjtizo  is  used  in  the  sense  of  wetting,  by 
the  application  of  a  fluid  to  the  substance.  Hippo- 
crates directed  that  a  blister  plaster  should  be  mois- 

*  Wall's  Hist.,  V.  3,  p.  122.  t  PP>  U»  44. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  87 

tened  (bapsas)  with  the  oil  of  roses;  and  if  it 
should  be  too  painful,  it  should  be  baptized  again 
(baptizein)  with  breast  milk  and  Egyptian  oint- 
ment." No  one  can  believe  that  the  word  is  here 
used  in  the  sense  of  immersing.  The  blister  plas- 
ter was  simply  to  be  moistened  or  wetted  with 
breast  milk.  In  the  Lexington  Debate,  we  tried  in 
vain  to  get  the  attention  of  Mr.  Campbell  to  this 
passage  ;  and  in  his  late  book,  he  prudently  omits  all 
reference  to  it.  In  Num.  19:  17,  18,  we  find  the 
following  law:  "  And  for  an  unclean  person,  they 
shall  take  of  the  ashes  of  a  burnt  heifer  of  purifica- 
tion for  sin,  and  running  water  shall  be  put  thereto 
in  a  vessel ;  and  a  clean  person  shall  take  hyssop, 
and  dip  in  the  water,  and  sprinkle  it  in  the  tent," 
etc.  Josephus,  giving  an  account  of  this  ceremony, 
says,  they  baptized  {baptizantes}  the  ashes  with 
the  spring  of  water.  *  Mr.  Carson  says,  by  way  of 
saving  the  cause  of  immersion,  "  The  Septuagint 
directs  that  the  water  shall  be  poured  upon  the 
ashes  into  a  vessel.  Josephus  relates  the  fact,  as 
if  the  ashes  were  thrown  into  the  water  !  "  f  A  case 
somewhat  similar  to  these  is  found  in  Homer's 
Iliad,  where  Ajax  is  described  killing  Cleobulus : 
"  He  struck  him  across  the  neck  with  his  heavy 
sword,  and  the  whole  sword  became  warm  with  the 
blood."     Pseudo-Bydimus  says,  the  sword  was  bap- 


*  Antiq.,B.  4,c.  4.  \  p.  92. 


88  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

tized  (ebaptisthe)  with  the  blood;  and  Dionysius 
says:  "  Homer  expresses  himself  with  the  greatest 
energy,  signifying  that  the  sword  was  so  baptized 
(baptisthentes)  with  blood,  that  it  was  even  heated 
by  it.'"  The  action  of  immersing  is  not  found  here. 
Plutarch  relates,  that  a  Roman  general,  a  little 
before  he  died  of  his  wound,  "  set  up  a  trophy,  on 
which,  having  baptized  (baptisas)  his  hand  with 
blood,  he  wrote  this  inscription,-"'  etc.  Every  reader 
can  judge  for  himself,  whether  he  immersed  his 
hand  in  his  blood,  in  order  to  write. 

So  far,  then,  as  classic  usage  is  concerned,  bap- 
tizo evidently  has  the  following  meanings,  viz  :  to 
sink,  to  immerse,  to  moisten  or  wet  in  any  man- 
ner. Let  us  now  inquire  how  this  word  was  used  by 
the  Jews,  in  relation  to  religious  ordinances.  Let 
it  be  noted,  1st.  That  in  the  sacred  writings  of  the 
Jews,  baptizo  is  never  used  with  reference  to  any 
fluid  but  water.  2d.  That  it  is  used  exclusively 
with  reference  to  religious  washings  or  purifications, 
never  in  relation  to  ordinary  matters  ;  and  3d.  That 
according  to  the  unanimous  opinion  of  interpreters 
and  critics,  the  meaning  of  the  word,  as  used  to 
designate  Christian  baptism,  must  be  learned  chiefly 
from  the  usage  of  the  Jews.  As  we  have  already 
shown,  classic  usage  is  no  certain  reliance  on  such 
a  question,  inasmuch  as  the  Jews  did  not  speak  or 
write  classic  Greek,  and  inasmuch  as  they  certainly 
appropriated  the  word  baptizo  to   designate  those 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  89 

religious  ablutions  of  which  the  Pagan  Greeks  knew 
nothing. 

The  first  instance  in  which  the  word  is  used  in  the 
Bible,  is  in  2  Kings,  5 :  14.  In  this  instance,  the 
meaning,  it  is  possible,  is  to  immerse.  Elisha  directed 
Naaman,  the  Syrian  leper,  to  "  go  and  wash  in  Jor- 
dan seven  times ;  and  he  went  down  and  dipped 
himself  seven  times."  The  Hebrew  word  is  tabal. 
But  even  here,  Jerome,  who  will  not  be  suspected  of 
any  leaning  toward  pouring  or  sprinkling,  trans- 
lates it  by  the  word  lavo,  to  wash — "  Descendit,  et 
lavit  in  Jordane,"  etc.  Uaptizo  is  twice  found  in 
the  Apocryphal  books.  These  examples  serve  to 
show  in  what  sense  it  was  used  by  the  Jews,  in  rela- 
tion to  religious  ablutions.  Of  Judith,  12  :  5,  it 
is  said :  < '  She  went  out  by  night  and  washed 
(ebaptizeto)  herself  in  the  camp  at  the  fountain 
of  water."  Did  Judith  immerse  herself  ?  The 
following  evidences  are  conclusive  against  such  a 
supposition,  viz  :  1.  She  was  a  Jewess  ;  and  no  law 
of  Moses  required  immersion,  in  order  to  purifica- 
tion. That  law,  in  some  instances,  required  wash- 
ing, but  not  immersion.  The  Hebrew  word  used 
is  rahatz,  to  wash,  which  is  sometimes  translated 
bathe,  but  never  dip.  2.  It  is  most  improbable  that 
a  chaste  female  would  immerse  herself  in  a  military 
camp.  3.  She  baptized  herself  at  a  fountain  or 
spring.  To  suppose  that  she  immersed  herself  in  a 
spring,  is  simply  ridiculous.     4.   Besides,  the  Ian- 


90  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

guage  forbids  the  idea.  It  is  not  said  she  baptized 
herself  in  or  into  the  spring,  but  at  {epi)  it.  The 
preposition  epi  never  means  in  or  into.  Mr.  Car- 
son, however,  not  discouraged  by  these  difficulties, 
escapes  them  all,  by  simply  guessing  that  there 
were  "  stone  troughs  or  other  vessels,"  usually  pro- 
vided at  fountains  for  washing  clothes  and  bathing  ! 
Mr.  Campbell  more  prudently  connects  with  this 
another  passage,  and  hurries  away,  with  the  general 
remark,  that  "  these  instances  constitute  no  excep- 
tion from  the  established  meaning  of  the  word  in 
classic  and  common  use ! "  A  figure  of  speech,  a 
bold  conjecture,  or  a  prudent  silence,  is  quite  suffi- 
cient to  deliver  our  immersionist  friends  from  all 
their  troubles  ! 

Baptizo  is  used  in  Eccl.  31:  25  :  "  He  that  is 
baptized  after  touching  a  dead  body,  {baptizome- 
nos  ajjo  nekrou,')  if  he  touch  it  again,  what  is  he 
profited  by  his  washing?"  (Zontro.)  The  reader 
will  immediately  notice  the  fact,  that  the  word  bap- 
tizomenos  is  here  used  in  precisely  the  same  sense 
as  loutro ;  and  no  one  denies  that  this  latter  word 
signifies  washing  in  any  mode.  Now,  if  he  will 
turn  to  Num.  19:  16,  where  the  law  is  instituted  to 
which  reference  is  here  made,  he  will  find  sprinkling 
required,  but  not  immersion.  Mr.  Campbell,  in- 
deed, says,  according  to  this  law,  "  the  unclean 
was  never  cleansed  until  he  bathed  himself  in 
water."     But  he  cannot  be  ignorant  of   the  fact, 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM,  91 

tliat  the  word  translated  bathe  {rahatz)  signifies  to 
wash  in  any  mode  ;  and,  consequently,  no  immer- 
sion was  required.  How  was  it  possible,  for  exam- 
ple, that  immersion  could  have  been  practiced  during 
the  forty  years  sojourn  in  the  wilderness ,  during 
which  time  this  law  was  in  full  force  ? 

In  the  New  Testament,  bapiizo  and  baptismos 
are  used  several  times  with  reference  to  the  religious 
washings  of  the  Jews,  and  in  every  instance  in  such 
connection  as  to  forbid  the  idea  of  immersion.  In 
Mark,  7:  3,  4,  we  read:  "  For  the  Pharisees  and 
all  the  Jews,  except  they  wash  their  hands  oft,  eat 
not,  holding  the  tradition  of  the  elders.  And  when 
they  come  from  the  market,  except  they  wash,  (or 
baptize — eanme  bajitisontai)  they  eat  not."  Dr. 
Gale  earnestly  insisted  that  both  in  this  passage  and 
in  Luke  11 :  38,  the  word  baptizo  means  "  wash  the 
hands  by  dipping.'5  This  seems  to  have  been  the 
opinion  of  Mr.  Campbell  in  years  past ;  for  his 
translation  of  the  New  Testament  gives  the  follow- 
ing rendering  of  Mark,  7:  3,  4:  "  For  the  Phari- 
sees, and  indeed  all  the  Jews  who  observed  the 
tradition  of  the  elders,  eat  not  until  they  have 
washed  their  hands  by  pouring  a  little  water  upon 
them ;  and  if  they  be  come  from  the  market,  by 
dipping  them."  This  we  are  constrained  to  regard 
as  one  of  the  most  reckless  perversions  of  the  word 
of  God  with  which  we  have  ever  met.  In  the  first 
place,  the   Greek  word  pugme,  translated  in   the 


92  MODE  OP  BAPTISM. 

common  Bible  oft,  is  here  made  to  mean,  "  by  pour' 
ing  a  little  water  upon  them"  What  a  prolific 
little  word !  But  it  means  no  such  thing ;  and  no 
lexicon  ever  gave  it  such  a  signification.  In  the 
second  place,  the  words  ean  me  baptisontai,  liter- 
ally translated,  unless  they  baptize,  Mr.  Campbell 
translates,  by  dipping  them !  Was  ever  such 
liberty  taken  with  the  Bible,  in  order  to  support  any 
cause  ?  * 

But  Mr.  Carson  could  not  agree  with  Dr.  Grale  and 
Mr.  Campbell.  He  says  :  "  It  is  evident  that  the 
word  does  not  here  refer  to  the  hands ;  'J  and  he 
would,  in  the  face  of  history  and  of  all  probability, 
make  the  inspired  Writer  say,  "  Except  they  dip 
themselves,  they  eat  not!"  He  is  not  deterred  by 
the  undeniable  fact,  that  no  trace  of  any  such  cus- 
tom amongst  the  Jews  can  be  found,  and  that  it  is 
impossible  that  such  a  thing  should  have  been  gen- 


*  This  singular  translation,  I  took  occasion  to  expose  in  the 
Lexington  Debate.  I  then  spoke  as  follows  :  Ci  By  what  author- 
ity the  phrase,  ( by  pouring  a  little  water  on  them,5  is  here 
introduced,  I  know  not.  Can  it  be,  that  the  little  adverb, 
pugme,  contains  all  this?  If  so,  it  is  certainly  the  most 
remarkable  adverb  I  have  ever  seen  !  I  assert,  that  this  is  no 
translation  at  all ;  it  is  not  akin  to  a  translation.  In  the  orig- 
inal Greek,  the  expression,  '  they  eat  not,'  occurs  twice.  One 
of  these  expressions,  the  gentleman  has  thrown  out,  in  order  to 
get  in  the  phrase,  '  by  dipping  them ! '  For  if  he  had  not 
rejected  part  of  the  Greek,  he  could  not  have  thus  translated 
the  passage.    Having  got  part  of  the  Greek  out  of  his  way,  he 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  93 

erally  practiced.  "  There  is  no  need,"  says  he, 
"  to  refer  to  the  practice  of  the  time,  nor  to  ran* 
sack  the  writings  of  the  Rabbins,  for  the  practice 
of  the  Jews.  We  have  here  the  authority  or!  the 
Holy  Spirit  for  the  Jewish  custom.  He  uses  the 
word  baptizo,  and  that  word  signifies  to  dip,  and 
only  to  dip."  *  It  is  impossible  to  head  such  men. 
We  are  looking  for  the  usage  of  an  Important  word, 
for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  its  meaning ;  and 
when  we  find  It  used  in  a  connection  which  demon- 
strates that  it  signifies  simply  the  washing  of  the 
hands,  we  are  told  that  the  word  does  always  mean  to 
dip,  and,  therefore,  it  must  so  mean  in  this  case, 
whether  the  evidence  is  decidedly  against  it  or  not! 
Strangely  enough,  Mr.  Campbell  has  become  a 
convert  to  Mr.  Carson's  opinion.  He  has  learned 
that  the  little  word  pugrhe,  which  he  so  strangely 
mistranslated,  means  ih&Jist,  and  that  the  word  bap* 
tizo   expresses  the  immersion  of  the  whole  body! 

makes  a  most  singular  reading  of  what  remains  J  The  Greek 
phrase,  ean  me  baptieontai,,  (literally,  unless  they  baptize,) 
fee  translates,  'by  dipping  them 5'  that  is,  he  takes  a  Greek 
Conjunction,  an  adverb,  and  a  verb,  in  the  third  person, 
plural  number,  and  translates  them  by  a  preposition  by,  a  par- 
ticiple dipping,  and  adds  the  word  them,  which  is  not  in  the 
Greek!!  Such  a  translation,  or  rather  such  a  perversion  of 
Scripture,  I  do  not  remember  ever  to  have  seen ;  and  all  to  sus- 
tain the  claims  of  immersion !  " 

To  this  severe   exposure  of  his  translation,  Mr.   Campbell 
attempted  no  reply ! 

*  pp.  100,  101. 

9 


94  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

"  Hence,"  says  he.  "  they  dip  or  bathe  themselves , 
after  being  to  market ;  whereas  ordinarily  they  wash 
their  hands  only  up  to  the  wrist !  "  *  He  seems  to 
think  it  unaccountably  strange,  that  in  the  two 
passages  under  consideration,  baptizo  should  have 
been  translated  to  wash,  although  he  himself  so 
translated  it  in  Luke  11 :  88 !  It  is  not  at  all  sur- 
prising, that  those  who  can  imagine  the  custom  of 
immersing  before  dinner,  should  find  no  difficulty  in 
the  equally  improbable,  not  to  say  impossible,  idea 
of  immersing  cups  and  pots,  brazen  vessels,  and 
tables.f 

The  evidence  that,  in  these  two  instances,  baptizo 
d!oes  not  signify  to  immerse,  is  absolutely  conclu- 
sive. For  if  there  was  any  part  of  their  traditions, 
in  regard  to  which  the  Jews  were  specially  attentive, 
it  was  their  ablutions.  If,  then,  the  custom  had 
prevailed  of  personal  immersion  before  dinner;  if 
this  custom  had  been  so  general,  that  a  Pharisee 
wondered  that  Jesus,  whom  he  had  invited  to  dinner ? 
did  not  first  immerse  himself,  it  is  impossible 
that  in  all  the  Jewish  writings,  no  trace  of  such  a 
custom  should  be  found.  Yet  anti-pedo-baptists, 
with  all  their  zeal  and  research,  have  confessedly 
failed  to  discover  anything  of  the  kind. 

Indeed,  it  is  absolutely  impossible   that  such    a 
custom  should  have   prevailed.       How    could   each 


Mark,  7:4,  t  P-  166. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  95 

family,  in  a  dry  country  like  Palestine,  be  supplied 
with  sufficient  water  for  each  member  of  the  family  to 
immerse  himself  before  dinner,  and  also  when  he  had 
been  to  market  ?  And  then  at  a  public  feast,  what 
would  be  done  to  enable  each  of  the  company  to  im- 
merse himself  before  eating  ?  Happily,  we  are  in- 
formed by  an  inspired  writer,  how  they  managed  the 
matter  of  purification  on  such  occasions.  At  the 
wedding  in  Oana,  we  learn  that  "  there  were  set  there 
six  water-pots  of  stone,  after  the  manner  of  the  puri- 
fying of  the  Jews,  containing  two  or  three  firkins 
apiece."  *  These  small  water-pots  were  sufficient  for 
all  the  purifications  observed  on  such  occasions.  Mr. 
Carson  says  :  "  The  water-pots  were,  no  doubt,  for 
the  purifications  usual  at  a  wedding.  *  *  *  The 
hands  and  the  feet  of  the  guests  were  washed,  and, 
very  likely,  the  vessels  used  at  the  feast,"  etc.f 
Certainly,  the  guests  were  not  immersed  in  the  pots. 
But  the  zeal  with  which  our  Baptist  friends  have 
sought  evidence  in  favor  of  personal  immersion  to 
sustain  their  cause,  is  evident  from  the  following 
fact,  brought  forward  by  both  Gale  and  Carson,  and 
from  the  argument  founded  upon  it :  u  Mr.  Bruce 
informs  us,  that  in  Abyssinia  the  sect  called  Kem- 
mont,  6  wash  themselves  from  head  to  foot  after 
coming  from  the  market,  or  any  public  place,  where 
they  may  have  touched  any  one  of  a  different  sect 

*  John,  2:6.  f  On  Bap.,  p.  115. 


96  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

from  their  own,  esteeming  all  such  unclean.'  Is  it 
strange,  then,  to  find  the  Pharisees,  the  superstitious 
Pharisees,  immersing  their  couches  for  purification, 
or  themselves  after  market?'5'*  But,  in  the  first 
place,  Bruce  does  not  say,  the  Abyssinian  sect  im- 
mersed themselves  on  coming  from  a  public  place. 
There  is  a  great  difference  between  washing  the 
whole  body,  and  immersing  it.  A.  man  might 
wash  his  whole  body  with  -a  basin  of  water,  but  if  he 
were  about  to  immerse  himself,  arrangements  must 
be  made  on  a  much  more  extensive  scale.  Now,  we 
do  not  deny  the  possibility  of  the  Jews  washing 
their  whole  bodies  twice  or  thrice  each  day,  but  to 
immerse  themselves  would  be  a  very  different  af- 
fair. 

But  it  is  vain  to  infer  from  the  conduct  of  an 
Abyssinian  sect  the  practice  of  the  Jews.  We  have 
full  accounts  of  all  the  ceremonial  observances  of 
the  Jews,  and  amongst  them  do  not  find  any  such 
custom  as  that  of  immersing  on  coming  from  the 
market,  and  before  dinner. 

But  it  is  argued  that  there  were  evidently  two  wash- 
ings observed  by  the  Jews,  the  one  expressed  by  the 
word  niptoy  to  wash  the  hands  ;  and  the  other,  when 
they  came  from  the  market,  expressed  by  baptiz- 
omai,  which  relates  to  the  whole  body.  Let  us 
admit  ?   though   all    the   evidence  from    Jewish  cus* 

*  CarsojQ  on  Baptism,  pp.  115.,  11$, 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  97 

toms  is  against  it,  that  the  Jews,  on  coming  from 
the  market,  washed  their  whole  bodies  ;  will  it  fol- 
low, that  they  plunged  themselves  ?  Remember, 
you  have  undertaken  to  prove,  not  that  baptizo 
expresses  the  Washing  of  the  whole  body,  but  that 
it  expresses  the  action  of  immersing !  If  it  were 
demonstrated,  as  it  never  can  be,  that  the  Jews  were 
accustomed,  on  coming  from  the  market  and  before 
dinner,  to  wash  their  whole  bodies,  it  would  not  be 
made  even  probable  that  they  performed  the  action 
of  immersing  themselves.  The  simple  truth,  how- 
ever, is,  that  they  washed  their  hands.  This  is  the 
whole  that  they  did,  as  is  evident  from  the  complaint 
made  by  the  Pharisees  against  Christ  and  his  dis- 
ciples, which  was,  not  that  they  did  not  immerse 
themselves,  but  that  they  ate  bread  with  "  an- 
washen  hands."*  By  this  neglect,  and  this  only, 
they  were  charged  with  transgressing  "  the  tradition 
of  the  elders.5'  Most  evident  it  is,  therefore,  that 
in  these  instances  persons  are  said  to  have  been  bap- 
tized, when  their  hands  were  Washed.  And  as  no  one 
will  deny  that  the  hands  may  be,  and  amongst  the 
Jews  were  constantly  washed  by  pouring  water  on 
them,  the  conclusion  is  inevitable,  that  baptizo  ex- 
presses the  application  of  water  by  pouring* 

The    only   other    instance    we    notice   in    which 
this  disputed  word  is  used  in   the  New  Testament, 


*  Mark,  7  :  1,  2  j  Matt.,  15 :  1,  2. 

9* 


98  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

in  a  literal  sense,  without  reference  either  to  John's 
baptism  or  to  Christian  baptism,  is  inHeb.,  9:  10, 
where  we  read  of  "  divers  washings,"  {baptis- 
moi.)  The  Jewish  law  had  a  number  of  ablutions, 
but  no  personal  immersions  ;  and  inasmuch  as 
the  divers  baptisms  evidently  include  all  their  ablu- 
tions, they  must  include  the  sprinklings,  as  well  as 
the  washings. 

From  the  preceding  discussion,  we  arrive  at  the 
following  conclusions,  viz  : 

1st.  That  in  the  classics,  the  word  baptizo  has 
some  three  or  four  shades  of  meaning,  one  or  two 
of  which  are  specific ;  the  others,  such  as  moistening, 
wetting,  etc.,  are  generic.  Classic  usage,  therefore, 
does  not  enable  us  to  decide  in  what  sense  it  was 
used  by  our  Saviour. 

2d.  In  the  Scriptures  and  Apocryphal  writings, 
there  is  no  single  instance  in  which  it  can  be  proved 
to  mean  to  immerse,  whilst  there  are  several  in- 
stances in  which  it  is  most  manifestly  used  in  the 
sense  of  washing,  cleansing.  Indeed,  this  is  its 
prevailing  signification,  as  used  by  the  Jews  and 
by  the  inspired  writers  in  their  sacred  books.  And 
inasmuch  as  our  Saviour  found  the  word  in  use  with 
this  signification,  there  is  very  strong  reason  to  be- 
lieve he  used  it  in  the  same  sense. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


LETTER  VI. 


Dear  Sir  :  In  the  Scriptures  and  in  the  religious 
writings  of  the  Jews,  the  word  baptizo,  as  we  have 
seen,  is  used  in  such  connection,  when  not  designa- 
ting the  ordinance  of  baptism,  as  to  forbid,  in  almost 
every  instance,  the  idea  of  immersion.  The  appli- 
cation of  water  to  the  person  by  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling, for  the  purpose  of  purification,  is  evidently 
meant ;  and  in  this  sense,  it  is  fair  to  conclude,  our 
Saviour  employed  it. 

Let  us  now  turn  to  the  different  translations  of 
the  Scriptures  into  other  languages,  both  in  ancient 
and  in  modern  times,  and  see  what  light  they  throw 
on  the  meaning  of  the  word,  and  the  mode  of  ad- 
ministering baptism. 

1.  The  Peshito,  an  old  Syriac  version,  is  the  old- 
est translation  of  the  New  Testament  in  the  world. 
This,  together  with  the  JEthiopic,  Dr.  Gale  considers 
"  almost  as  valuable  and  authentic  as  the  original 
itself,  being  made  from  primitive  copies,  in  or  very 
near  the  time  of  the  apostles."  Professor  Stuart 
says:  "  In  all  probability,  it  should  be  dated  during 
the  first  half  of  the  second  century  ;  "  and  he  adds, 
"  withal,  it  is  admitted  by  those  who  are  able  to 
consult  it,  to  be  one  of  the  most  faithful  and  authen- 
tic of  all  the  ancient  versions."  This  version,  then, 
is  a  most  important  witness  in  this  controversy  ;  and 


100  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

we  would  be  perfectly  safe  in  agreeing  to  decide  the 
controversy  upon  this  single  authority.  Our  immer- 
sionist  friends  cannot  object  to  it ;  for  it  was  made 
at  a  period  when,  if  their  exclusive  views  are  correct, 
immersion  was  universally  practiced  as  the  only  Chris- 
tian baptism.  Such  being  confessedly  its  importance, 
we  cannot  but  wonder  that  they  have  passed  it  with 
so  slight  notice.  Dr.  Gale,  though  he  quotes  it  on 
another  point,  and  gives  it  the  highest  commenda- 
tion, does  not  at  all  refer  to  its  translation  of  bap- 
tize* ;  and  Mr.  Carson  observes  the  same  significant 
silence.  Mr.  Campbell,  less  praderit,  exposes  the 
weakness  of  his  cause  by  a  superficial  attempt  to 
compel  this  version  to  testify  for  him. 

1st.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact,  that  the  primary 
meaning  of  the  word  amad,  which  is  uniformly  em- 
ployed in  the  Syriac  version  to  translate  baptizo,  is 
to  stand,  and  then  to  cause  to  stand,  or  confirm. 
This  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  m  Hebrew,  Chal- 
daic,  and  Arabic,  which  are  very  near  of  kin  of  the 
Syriac.  The  Lexicons  all  give  the  word  this  deriva- 
tion. "  It  is  hardly  credible,"  says  Professor  Stuart, 
"  that  the  Syriac  word  could  vary  so  much  from 
all  these  languages,  as  properly  to  mean  immerse, 
dip"  etc. 

2d.  Besides,  the  Syriac  has  a  word  {tseva)  which 
properly  means  to  dip  or  plunge ;  and  this  word  is 
used  in  every  case  in  the  New  Testament,  where  the 
idea  of  dipping  occurs.     But  it  is  not  used  in  trans- 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  101 

lating  bajitizo.  How  shall  we  account  for  the  fact, 
that  instead  of  using  the  word  signifying  to  immerse, 
in  translating  baptizo,  the  Syriac  translator  uni- 
formly employs  a  word  meaning  to  confirm  ?  u  We 
come  almost  necessarily  to  the  conclusion,  then," 
says  Stuart,  "  inasmuch  as  the  Syriac  has  an  ap- 
propriate word  which  signifies  to  dip,  plunge,  im- 
merse, (tsevaf)  and  yet  ic  is  never  employed  in  the 
Peshito,  that  the  translator  did  not  deem  it  important 
to  designate  any  particular  mode  of  baptism,  but 
only  to  designate  the  rite  by  a  term  which  evidently 
appears  to  mean  confirm,  establish,  etc.  Baptism, 
then,  in  the  language  of  the  Peshito,  is  the  rite  of 
confirmation  simply,  while  the  manner  of  this  is 
apparently  left  without  being  at  all  expressed." 

3d.  The  lexicons,  whilst  they  derive  the  word 
amad  from  the  Hebrew  word  meaning  to  stand, 
give  its  ordinary  meaning  to  wash,  purify.  You 
and  your  principal  authority,  Mr.  Gotch,  admit  that 
Castel,  Buxtorf,  and  Schaaf,  the  most  celebrated 
Syriac  lexicographers,  are  perfectly  agreed  in  defin- 
ing this  word.  Schaaf ,  whose  lexicon  is  now  before 
me,  defines  it — Jlbluit  se,  ablutus,  intinctus,  im- 
mersus  in  aquam,  baptizatus  est;  he  ivashed 
himself,  ivas  ivashed,  stained,  immersed  in  iva- 
ter.  Here  to  id  ash  is  given  as  the  leading  signifi- 
cation  in  the  New  Testament  ;  and  he  refers  to  no 
passage  where  it  means  immerse,  except  Num.,  31 : 
23  ;  and  if  the  reader  will  turn  to  that  passage,  he 


102  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

will  be  satisfied,  that  to  go  through  water  is  to  be 
purified  with  water. 

4th.  That  the  word  a?nad  does  not  mean  immerse, 
is  evident  from  the  fact  that  it  is  used  in  translating 
the  Greek  word  photizo,  which  means  to  enlighten.* 
Baptism  was  administered  to  those  who  professed  to 
have  been  enlightened,  and  it  was  regarded  as  con- 
firmatory ;  therefore,  amad  was  used  with  these 
shades  of  meaning,  together  with  the  sense  of  wash- 
ing, thus  expressing  the  meaning  of  baptism,  not 
the  mode. 

5th.  Mr.  Gotch  himself,  on  whom  Mr.  Campbell 
chiefly  relies,  bears  a  testimony  which  is  fatal  to  the 
argument  for  immersion.  He  says  :  s'  We  are, 
moreover,  warranted  in  concluding,  that  though  the 
term  was  peculiarly  appropriated  to  the  rite  of  Chris- 
tian baptism,  as  is  manifest  from  its  being  used  as 
the  translation  of  photisthentes,  (^enlightened ,)  it 
was,  nevertheless,  regarded  by  the  Syriac  translator 
as  synonymous  with  baptizo,  in  all  the  senses  in 
which  that  word  is  used  in  the  New  Testament,  and 
not  as  simply  expressive  of  the  Christian  rite.  See 
e.  g.,  Mark,  7:  4,  and  Luke,  11:  38,  where  the 
word  is  used  in  reference  to  Jewish  ablutions.  * 
*  *  But  the  fact  seems  clear,  that  it  had  acquired, 
in  the  time  of  the  Syriac  translation,  the  meaning 
which  the  lexicons  give — abluit  se."  *     Thus,  Gotch 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  103 

not  only  admits,  contrary  to  the  assertion  of  Mr, 
Campbell,  that  baptizo  has  different  meanings,  but 
that  the  word  amad  did  have  the  general  meanino' 
of  washing  or  cleansing. 

Now,  then,  when  we  remember,  that  the  Syriac  has 
a  word  which  signifies  properly  to  dip,  how  shall  we 
account  for  the  fact  that  the  translator  rendered  bap- 
tizo by  a  word  meaning  to  confirm,  to  purify,  to 
enlighten,  and  which  does  not  express  mode  ?  Ic 
will  not  be  pretended  that  he  Was  swayed  bv  Pedo* 
baptist  influence ;  since  it'  our  immersionist  friends 
are  in  the  right,  there  were  then  no  Pedo-baptists  in 
the  world.  Most  evidently,  the  Syriac  translator  did 
not  understand  baptizo  as  meaning  to  immerse,  or 
he  would  have  chosen  a  Syriac  word  which  has  this 
meaning, 

1.  This  version  furnishes  an  unanswerable  argu- 
ment against  the  doctrine  of  immersionists,  and  a 
stern  rebuke  to  those  who,  losing  sight  of  the  mean- 
ing and  design  of  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  insist 
on  a  new  translation  of  the  Scriptures,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  sustaining  their  notions  as  to  the  mere  mode 
of  its  administration.  It  was  made  before  the  ordi- 
nance became  corrupted,  and  when  not  only  the 
meaning  of  baptizo ,  but  the  practice  of  the  apos- 
tles, was  well  known;  and  it  is  a  fact  of  immense 
value,  that  it  translates  baptizo  by  a  word  which, 


*  Append,  to  Bib.  Quest,  pp.  164, 165. 


104  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

Mr.  Gotch,  who  is  Mr.  Campbell's  only  witness  on 
this  point,  testifies,  means  to  wash  or  cleanse,  (ab- 
lidt  se.)  Why  did  not  the  primitive  immcrsionists 
cry  out  against  such  a  translation?  Simply  because 
there  were  no  suck  people. 

2.  The  oldest  Arabic  version,  which  dates  back  as 
far  as  the  seventh  century,  together  with  others  of 
later  date,  translates  bapiizo  by  amada,  which  is 
identical  in  form  and  meaning  with  the  Syriac  word 
just  examined.  Of  course,  these  versions  are  with 
us,  and  against  immersionists. 

8.  The  iEthiopie  version,  Mr.  Gotch  admits, 
translates  baptiso  by  a  word  signifying  to  wash, 
as  well  as  to  immerse  ;  and  since  it  is  certainly  gen* 
eric  in  its  meaning,  it  affords  the  cause  of  iranier* 
sion  no  aid. 

4,  The  Persic  version,  as  Mr.  Gotch  and  Mr. 
Campbell  admit,  translates  bapiizo  by  a  word  signi- 
fying to  ivash.  It,  therefore,  is  against  the  imnier* 
sionist  view  oC  baptizo.  And,  then,  it  is  a  fact,  of  no 
small  importance,  that  this  version  wa3  made,  not 
from  the  original  Greek,  but  from  the  Syriac,  which 
proves,  beyond  doubt,  that  the  Syriac  word  arrtad 
Was  then  understood  to  mean,  not  to  immerse,  but  to 
Wash. 

5.  The  Sahidic  and  Basmuric  versions,  as  Mr. 
Gotch  and  Mr.  Campbell  admit,  do  not  translate 
baptizo,  but  transfer  it,  just  as  our  English  Bible 
does  >  and  yet  both  these  gentlemen  set  these  ver- 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  105 

slons  down  as  translating  the  word  by  words  mean- 
ing immerse !  Now,  Mr.  Campbell,  since  you 
have  set  down  the  versions  which  transfer  the 
word,  among  immersionist  translations,  why  did  you 
not,  for  the  same  reason,  place  King  James'  trans- 
lation on  the  same  side  ?  We  earnestly  ask,  why 
not  ?  The  simple  truth  is,  these  versions  prove 
nothing  either  way,  since  they  do  not  translate  the 
Word  at  all. 

6.  The  old  Italic  version,  made  in  the  early  part 
of  the  second  century,  and  in  high  authority  until 
after  Jerome's  translation,  (the  Latin  Vulgate,) 
transferred,  and  did  not  translate  bajitizo ;  and  in 
the  only  instance  in  which  the  Vulgate  translates  it, 
it  renders  it  by  the  generic  word  lavo,  to  wash. 
Now,  these  versions,  like  the  Syriac,  were  made 
when,  it  immersionists  are  to  be  believed,  all  Chris- 
tendom practiced  immersion;  and  since  the  Latin 
language  has  several  words  which  definitely  signify 
to  immerse,  (such  as  mergo,  immergo,  intingo,  etc.,) 
how  happened  it,  that  the  authors  of  these  versions 
never  once  translated  the  word  baptizo  by  either  of 
these?  The  true  answer  to  this  question  is  easily 
given,  especially  when  it  is  remembered  that  Cyprian, 
one  of  the  most  eminent  of  the  Christian  fathers 
of  the  third  century,  declared  baptism  by  effusion  or 
sprinkling  valid,  and  forbade  the  rebaptizing  of 
those  who  had  received  the  ordinance  in  this  manner  ; 
whilst  Aurelius  Prudentius,  in  the  fourth  century, 
10 


106  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

held  that  John's  baptism  was  administered  by  pour- 
ing, {jperfundit  jluvio.) 

7.  The  French,  the  Geneva  Bible,  the  Italic,  and 
Arias  Montanus,  all  either  transfer  the  word  bap- 
tize* ,  or  translate  it  by  a  generic  term  signifying  to 
wash,  cleanse,  but  never  translate  it  by  a  word 
meaning  to  immerse.  And  yet  Mr.  Campbell  places 
these  versions  on  his  list,  not  at  all  deterred  by  the 
plain  undeniable  fact,  that  the  Christians  by  whom 
they  are  used,  have  always  baptized  by  pouring  or 
sprinkling  1 

8.  That  the  German  does  not  favor  immersion, 
is  perfectly  clear  from  two  facts,  viz  :  1st.  It  uses 
the  phrase  mit  wasser — I  baptize  you  with  water, 
not  into  or  in  water ;  and  2d.  Those  by  whom  and 
for  whom  it  was  made,  have  generally  practiced 
pouring  or  sprinkling.  The  same  is  true  of  the 
Dutch,  Danish,  and  Swedish  translations. 

9.  The  Anglo-Saxon,  as  Mr.  Gotch  admits,  trans- 
lates baptizo  by  a  word  signifying  to  cleanse. 

Here  are  some  nineteen  of  the  principal  transla- 
tions of  the  Scriptures,  both  ancient  and  modern,  to 
which  it  would  be  easy  to  add  many  more,  not  one 
of  which  translates  baptizo  by  a  ivord  meaning 
immerse;  every  one  of  which  either  transfers  the 
word  just  as  our  Bible  does,  or  translates  it  by  a 
generic  word,  signifying  the  nature  and  design,  not 
the  mode,  of  baptism.  The  truth  is,  there  is  not, 
in  the  world,  one  respectable  translation  of  the 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  107 

Scriptures  that  renders  this  word  as  immersion- 
ists  insist  it  should  be  rendered ;  and  this  fact, 
especially  when  it  is  remembered  that  a  number  of 
the  versions  were  made  by  men  who  were  prejudiced 
in  favor  of  immersion,  is  an  overwhelming  argument 
demonstrating  that  baptizo  does  not  express  the 
specific  action  of  immersion,  and  that  it  does  not 
express  the  mode  by  which  baptism  is  to  be  ad- 
ministered. 

We  cannot  but  remark  the  fact,  that  much  atten- 
tion as  Mr.  Campbell  professes  to  have  paid  to 
the  translations  of  the  Scriptures,  the  only  author 
he  quotes  to  show  that  some  translations  favor  im- 
mersion, is  Mr.  Gotch — a  man  of  no  reputation  as 
a  Biblical  scholar — and  even  his  testimony  is  nofc 
fairly  presented ! 


LETTER  VIL 

Dear  Sir  :  We  have  appealed  to  five  classes  of 
evidence,  and  found  eaeh  of  them  to  bear  strongly 
against  your  doctrine  of  exclusive  immersion,  viz : 
The  almost  universal  sentiment  of  Christendom,  in 
all  ages  ;  the  unscriptural  view  of  baptism,  as  an 
action,  to  which  immersionists  have  been  driven; 
the  testimony  of  the  lexicons  ;  the  usage  of  the 
classic  Greeks  ;  the  usage  of  the  Jews  in  their  sacred 


108  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

writings ;  and  the  translations,  both  ancient  and 
modern.  We  now  proceed  to  inquire  whether  the 
early  Christian  writers,  Greeks  and  Latins,  under- 
stood baptizo  as  expressing  definitely  the  action  of 
immersing. 

We  begin  with  Origen,  the  most  learned  of  the 
Greek  fathers.  That  he  understood  his  native  tongue, 
will  scarcely  be  questioned.  His  language  is  as  fol- 
lows :  '<■  How  came  you  to  think  that  Elias,  when  he 
should  come,  would  baptize,  who  did  not,  in  Ahab's 
time,  baptize  the  wood  upon  the  altar,  which  was  to 
be  washed  before  it  was  burnt,  by  the  Lord's  ap- 
pearing in  fire,  etc.  But  he  ordered  the  priests  to 
do  that;  not  once  only,  but  says,  Do  it  the  second 
time  ;  and,  Do  it  the  third  time;  and  they  did  it  the 
third  time.  He,  therefore,  that  did  not  himself  bap- 
tize then,  but  assigned  that  work  to  others,  hoy?* 
was  he  likely  to  baptize,  when  he,  according  to 
Malichi's  prophecy,  should  ecme??>*  Origen  says, 
the  altar  was  baptized  at  the  command  of  Elias. 
Now,  if  the  reader  will  turn  to  Kings,  18:  33,  he 
will  see  that  this  baptism  certainly  was  by  pouring 
water  upon  the  altar.  Mr.  Campbell  thinks  Origen 
was  in  error  in  thus  using  the  word  baptizo.  He 
says :  6 '  We  are  all  in  the  habit  of  carrying  figures 
too  far,  as  well  as  Origen. **  f  When  immersionists, 
in  order  to  sustain  their  cause,  find  it  necessary  to 

*  Wall's.  Hist.,  v.  2,  p.  33.2.        |  Lexington  Bebates p.  164, 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM,  109 

correct  the  language  of  the  most  eminent  Greek 
scholars,  it  must  be  desperate.  But  what  figure,  is 
there  f  Or  how  can  pouring  water  be  figurative 
immersing  into  water?  It  will  not  do  to  say,  the 
altar  was  overwhelmed  $  for  this  is  not  true  in  any 
proper  sense  of  the  word  overwhelm.  Besides,  Mr, 
Campbell's  doctrine  requires  him  to  prove,  that  bap- 
lizo  definitely  expresses  a  particular  action,  not 
the  effect  produced  by  a  different  action.  Here, 
then,  we  have  an  example  of  baptism  by  pourings 
which  goes  far  to  settle  the  meaning  of  baptizo. 

Clemens  Alexandrinus,  speaking  of  a  penitent 
backslider,  says  :  "He  was  baptized  a  second  time 
with  tears.'5  It  requires  no  great  learning  to  determine 
the  mode  of  this  baptism.  Athanasius  reckons  eight 
several  baptisms  :  That  of  the  flood ;  that  of  Moses 
in  the  Red  Sea  ;  the  legal  baptism  of  the  Jews  for 
uncleanness ;  that  of  John  the  Baptist ;  that  of 
Jesus  ;  that  of  tears ;  that  of  martyrdom ;  that  of 
eternal  fire.  The  reader  can  decide  for  himself, 
whether  all  these  baptisms  are  immersions.  Gre- 
gory Naziauzen  says  :  "  I  know  of  a  fourth  baptism, 
that  by  martyrdom  and  blood ;  and  I  know  of  a  fifth, 
that  of  tears."  Bazil  speaks  of  a  martyr  who  was 
baptized  into  Christ  with  his  own  blood. 

Did  these  learned  fathers  understand  the  Greek 

language — their  vernacular   tongue?     If   they  did, 

the  pouring  of  water  on  the  altar,  the  flowing  of  the 

tears  of  a  penitent  over  his  face,  and  the  flowing  of 

10* 


110  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

a  martyr's  blood  over  his  body,  are  all  properly  ex- 
pressed by  the  words  baptizo  and  baptisma.  Most 
certainly,  then,  these  words  do  not  express  the  action 
of  immersion. 

It  is  a  fact  of  great  importance  in  this  argument, 
that  those  of  both  the  Greek  and  Latin  fathers,  who 
practiced  immersion,  were  accustomed,  in  cases  of 
sickness,  or  where  it  was  inconvenient  to  immerse, 
to  baptize  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  ;  and  the  validity 
of  such  baptisms  was  never  disputed.  Wall  states, 
that  "  in  the  case]  of  sickness,  weakliness,  haste, 
want  of  quantity  of  water,  or  such  extraordinary 
occasions,  baptism  by  effusion  of  water  on  the  face 
was,  by  the  ancients,  counted  sufficient  baptism.  The 
baptism  of  Novatian,  A.  D.  201,  is  an  example  of 
the  kind.  One  Magnus  wrote  to  Cyprian,  to  inquire, 
among  other  things,  whether  those  baptized  in  bed, 
as  Novatian  was,  should  be  baptized  again.  Cyprian 
answered  in  the  negative ;  and  to  prove  such  baptisms 
valid,  he  quoted  the  language  of  Ezekiel — '  Then 
will  I  sprinkle  clean  ivater  upon  you?  etc.  He 
quoted  also  Num.,  19:  13,  and  8:  7,  and  said, 
'  If  any  one  think  that  they  obtain  no  benefit,  as 
having  only  an  effusion  of  the  water  of  salvation, 
do  not  let  him  mistake  so  far  as  that  the  parties,  if 
they  recover  of  their  sickness,  should  be  baptized 
again.'  The  Acts  of  St.  Laurence,  who  suffered 
martyrdom  about  the  same  time  as  Cyprian,  do  tell 
how  one  of  the  soldiers  that  were  to  be  his  execu- 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  m 

tioners,  being  converted,  brought  a  pitcher  of  water 
for  Laurence  to  baptize  him  with."  *  Now,  what 
would  be  thought  of  a  young  immersionist  minister, 
who  should  inquire  of  an  older  or  more  able  minister 
of  the  same  faith,  whether  persons  immersed  by 
pouring  or  sprinkling  are  validly  immersed  ?  And 
what  would  be  thought,  if  the  latter  should  answer 
the  question  affirmatively,  and  should  advise  his 
young  brother  not  so  far  to  err  as  to  immerse  such 
persons  again  ?  Yet  such  precisely  was  the  question 
of  Magnus,  and  the  answer  of  Cyprian,  if  immer- 
sionists  are  to  be  believed.  For  as  the  Greek  was 
then  a  living  language,  and  as  Cyprian,  at  least, 
must  have  known  both  the  meaning  of  baptizo  and 
the  practice  of  the  church ;  if  it  be  true,  that  this 
word  was  then  understood  definitely  to  express  the 
action  of  immersing,  the  question  of  Magnus  and 
the  answer  of  Cyprian,  were  just  such  as  we  have 
stated.  Who  can  possibly  believe  it?  Besides,  how 
could  Cyprian  answer  the  question  as  he  did,  with- 
out exciting  warm  controversy,  if  it  was  then  gen- 
erally believed  that  baptism  must  be  administered  by 
immersion. 

But  the  undeniable  fact  is,  that  both  Greeks  and 
Latins  did  often  baptize  by  pouring  and  sprinkling. 
Now,  if  the  word  baptizo  signified  to  immerse,  how 
could  they  go  to  a  man  on  a  sick  bed,  and  say, 

Wall,  v.  2,  p.  389. 


112  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

baptizo  se  or  baptizo  te,  I  baptize  thee,  and  pour 
or  sprinkle  water  upon  him  ?  How  supremely  ridic- 
ulous would  a  minister  make  himself,  if  he  should 
go  to  a  sick  person,  and  say,  "  I  immerse  thee  in 
the  name,''  etc.,  and  pour  or  sprinkle  water  on  him. 
Would  any  sane  man  do  so  ?  Yet  precisely  this  ridic- 
ulous thing  the  Greek  and  Latin  fathers  often  did,  if 
the  word  baptizo  does  mean  to  immerse. 

That  the  primitive  church  did  not  understand  bap- 
tizo to  express  definitely  the  act  of  immersing,  is 
further  evident  from  the  fact,  that  when  they  wished 
definitely  to  express  this  action,  they  employed  the 
word  kataduo.  Professor  Stuart  says  :  "  The  Greek 
words  kataduo  and  katadusis  were  employed  as  ex- 
pressive of  baptizing  and  baptism;  and  these  words 
mean  going  down  into  the  water  or  immersing" 
Basil  says  :  "  By  the  three  immersions ,  {katadu- 
sesi,)  and  by  the  like  number  of  invocations,  the 
great  mystery  of  baptism  is  completed."  Damas- 
cenus  says  :  "  Baptism  is  a  type  of  the  death  of 
Christ ;  for  by  three  immersions,  (kataduseon^)  bap- 
tism signifies,"  etc.  The  Apostolic  Constitutions, 
written  probably  in  the  fourth  century,  say:  ''Im- 
mersion (katadusis)  denotes  dying  with  Christ; 
emersion  (anadusis)  a  resurrection  with  Christ." 
Photius  says  :  "  The  three  immersions  and  emersions 
(kataduseis  kai  anaduseis)  of  baptism  signify 
death  and  resurrection."  Chrysostom  says  :  "  We, 
as    in   a  sepulchre,  immersing  (Jeataduonton)   our 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  113 

heads  in  the  water,  the  old  man  is  buried,  and  sink- 
ing down,  (Jeatadus  kato,)  the  whole  is  concealed  at 
once,"  etc. 

These  writers,  it  should  be  observed,  make  a  dis- 
tinction between  baptism  and  immersion.  If  in 
these  passages,  just  cited  from  their  writings,  you 
substitute  immersion  for  baptism,  you  will  make 
nonsense  :  and  yet  this  is  precisely  what  immersion- 
ists  would  have  us  do  !  With  those  writers,  baptism 
was  one  thing,  and  the  mode  of  administration  ano- 
ther. Immersion  was  not  baptism,  but  one  of  the 
modes  in  which  it  was  administered. 

The  Latin  writers  followed  the  example  of  the 
Greeks,  transferring  the  word  baptizo  when  they 
spoke  of  the  ordinance,  and  using  mergo,  immer- 
go,  mergito,  intingo,  etc.,  when  they  spoke  of  one 
of  the  modes  of  administering  it,  and  p  erf un  do  or 
aspergo,  when  they  spoke  of  the  other  mode.  Thus, 
Praxeas  says:  "Not  once,  but  thrice,  according  to 
the  several  names,  etc.,  are  we  baptized,"  {tin- 
gimur.)  Tertullian  says:  "Thence,  we  are  thrice 
immersed^  {mergitamur. ) 

Now,  if  it  be  true,  as  immersionists  affirm,  that 
baptizo  does  definitely  express  the  act  of  immersing, 
how  shall  we  account  for  the  fact,  that  the  Greek  and 
Latin  writers  did  substitute  other  words  to  express 
immersion,  and  did  use  baptizo  in  baptizing  persons 
by  pouring  or  sprinkling  ?  The  truth  is,  the 
usage  of   the  word  amongst  the  Greek  and  Latin 


114  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

fathers  proves,  beyond  cavil,  that  it  has  not  the 
meaning  which  immersionists  insist  on  giving  it. 
With  them,  it  expressed  generally  the  idea  of  wash- 
ing, cleansing,  wetting  ;  and  they  familiarly  use  it 
in  such  connection  as  to  forbid  the  idea  of  immer- 
sion, either  literal  or  figurative.  This  is  the  more 
remarkable,  since,  in  the  third  and  fourth  centuries, 
trine  immersion,  and  that  with  the  candidates 
wholly  unclad,  prevailed.  The  prejudice  was  strongly 
in  favor  of  immersion  ;  and  yet  the  word  baptizo 
was  used  with  as  great  variety  of  meaning,  as  Pedo- 
baptists  have  ever  claimed  for  it. 

In  our  next,  we  propose  to  inquire  how  far  the 
Scripture  accounts  of  baptisms  administered,  and  of 
the  meaning  and  design  of  the  ordinance,  throw  light 
on  this  subject. 


LETTER  Yin. 

Dear  Sir  :  The  result  of  our  investigations  thus 
far,  is  as  follows  : 

1st.  The  lexicons  give  to  bapto  and  baptizo  sev- 
eral meanings,  only  one  of  which  expresses  the 
idea  of  immersion.  Consequently,  their  authority 
is  against  you.  2d.  The  Greek  classics  employ 
these  words  in  different  senses,  expressive  of  dipping, 
wetting,  washing,  even  of  sprinkling.     They,  there- 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  H5 

fore,  are  against  you.  3d.  The  Jews,  in  their 
sacred  writings,  canonical  and  apocryphal,  use  these 
words  in  the  sense  of  dipping,  wetting,  moistening, 
washing,  cleansing  ;  and  in  almost  every  case  "where 
bajjtizo  is  used,  the  circumstances  and  the  context 
prove,  that  the  application  of  water  by  pouring  or 
sprinkling  is  intended.  4th.  All  the  most  valuable 
translations,  ancient  and  modern,  either  transfer  the 
word  baptizo,  or  translate  it  by  a  generic  word, 
expressive  of  the  meaning  and  design  of  baptism, 
but  not  the  mode.  5th.  The  Christian  fathers,  Greek 
and  Latin,  used  baptizo  constantly  to  signify  the 
application  of  water  or  blood  by  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling ;  and  when  they  wished  definitely  to  express  the 
idea  of  immersion,  they  employed  other  words,  as 
kataduo,  mergo,  etc. 

Thus,  from  five  important  sources  of  evidence,  we 
find  your  declaration,  that  baptizo  definitely  ex- 
presses the  action  of  immersion,  entirely  disproved. 
We  turn  now  to  the  Scripture  account  of  the  ad- 
ministration of  baptism. 

1.  Immersionists  have  long  been  accustomed  to  refer 
to  John's  baptism,  in  support  of  their  exclusive  claims. 
They  find  two  reasons,  as  they  think,  for  affirming 
that  John's  baptism  was  by  immersion,  viz  :  1st.  He 
baptized  in  Jordan.  2.  He  baptized  "in  Enon  near 
Salem,  because  there  was  much  water  there."  Now, 
we  may  admit,  that  John  baptized  either  at  or  in 
Jordan  ;  but  the  question  still  recurs,  how  did  he 


116  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

baptize  ?  Did  he  apply  the  persons  to  the  water,  or 
the  water  to  the  persons  ?  There  were  other  reasons 
why  John  both  preached  and  baptized,  where  there 
was  abundance  of  water.  Great  multitudes  attended 
him — ' '  all  Judea  and  Jerusalem  ; '?  and  thev  needed 
water  for  other  purposes,  especially  since  they  could 
not  eat,  after  being  in  a  public  place,  without  bap- 
tizing themselves.*  Moreover,  it  was  a  matter  of 
no  inconvenience  for  the  Jews  to  step  into  the  water, 
But  supposing  them  to  be  in  Jordan,  did  John  im- 
merse them  ?  If  it  be  said,  their  being  in  Jordan, 
is  presumptive  evidence  that  they  were  immersed,  we 
answer — 

1st.  If  we  admit  this,  there  are  also  presumptive 
evidences  on  the  other  side.  In  the  first  place,  it  is 
not  very  probable  that  John  could  have  immersed 
so  great  multitudes,  during  his  ministry.  Secondly, 
we  read  of  no  preparation  for  immersion — no  bap- 
tisteries and  no  changing  of  garments.  But  when 
immersion  did  become  prevalent  in  the  church,  these 
necessary  fixtures  are  particularly  mentioned  by  his- 
torians. Is  it  likely,  if  such  a  custom  had  prevailed, 
that  neither  of  the  four  evangelists  would  have 
alluded  to  any  of  these  very  necessary  arrange- 
ments ? 

2d.  But  let  us  admit,  for  argument's  sake,  that 
John  must  have  baptized  by  immersion,  because  he 

*  Mark.  7  :  4 ;   Luke,  11 :  38. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  117 

baptized  in  Jordan,  and  where  there  was  much  wa- 
ter; is  not  the  inference  even  stronger  that  the  apos- 
tles did  not  immerse,  because  they  did  not  baptize  in 
Jordan,  or  where  there  was  much  water,  but  often  in 
houses,  jails,  etc.  ?  He  might  have  baptized  in  Jordan 
by  pouring,  and  he  might  have  needed  the  "  much 
water"  at  Enon  for  other  purposes ;  but  it  is  most 
improbable,  if  not  impossible,  that  they  should  have 
immersed  in  a  private  house  in  Jerusalem,  or  in 
Damascus,  or  in  a  jail  at  Phillippi.  The  conclusion, 
then,  would  be,  that  if  John  practiced  immersion, 
the  apostles  did  not ;  or  they,  like  him,  would  have 
gone  to  Jordan  or  to  Enon.  And  since  Mr.  Camp- 
bell admits  that  John's  baptism  was  not  Christian 
baptism,  he  will  not  deny,  that  it  is  more  proper  to 
learn  the  mode  of  baptism  from  the  practice  of  the 
apostles,  than  from  that  of  John.  Yet  it  is  a  little 
remarkable,  that  although  Mr.  Campbell  makes  a 
distinct  argument  and  a  distinct  chapter  in  favor  of 
immersion,  from  "  the  places  where  baptism  was 
anciently  administered,''  he  mentions  not  one  place 
where  Christian  baptism  was  administered !  Is  this 
not  a  rather  unaccountable  and  inexcusable  omission  ? 
If  it  were  true  that  baptism  was  always  or  generally 
administered  in  large  streams,  such  a  fact  might  be 
quite  favorable  to  immersion.  But  this  is  not  true ; 
and  especially  it  is  not  true  of  Christian  baptism — 
the  very  ordinance  about  which  we  are  concerned. 
Why  did  not  Mr.  C. ,  in  speaking  of  the  places  where 
11 


118  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

baptism  was  anciently  performed,  mention  that  where 
the  three  thousand  were  baptized  in  Jerusalem,  the 
jail  in  Phillippi,  and  the  private  dwelling  of  Simon, 
the  tanner,  in  Damascus  ?  Did  he  omit  the  mention 
of  these  places,  through  a  vague  apprehension  that 
the  argument  for  immersion  would  be  a  little  weak- 
ened, if  they  were  named?  * 

2.  We  now  affirm  that  the   Scriptural  account  of 
baptism,  as    administered    by   the   apostles,    is   de- 


*Professor  Stuart,  after  stating  that  great  multitudes  of  people 
flocked  to  John,  says :  "  Nothing  could  be  more  natural  than 
for  John  to  choose  a  place  that  was  watered  by  many  streams, 
where  all  could  be  accommodated."  And  he  goes  into  a  critical 
examination  of  the  phrase  polla  hueata,  translated  much 
water,  to  show  that  these  Greek  words  being  in  the  plural 
number,  ought  to  be  translated  many  waters  or  rivulets. 
After  a  careful  examination  of  the  usage  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, he  thus  concludes  :  i:  No  example,  then,  can  be  brought 
in  the  New  Testament  of  the  application  of  hudata,  to  desig- 
nate merely  quantity  of  water,  simply  considered  as-  deep  and 
abounding.  It  is  either  the  vast  waters  of  the  sea  or  lake,  as 
agitated  by  the  winds  and  broken  into  waves,  or  the  multiplied 
waters  of  numerous  springs  and  fountains,  which  are  here 
designated  by  the  plural  of  the  word  in  question." 

The  general  usage  of  the  Septuagint,  as  he  shows,  is  the 
same  as  that  of  the  New  Testament.  He  says  :  lt  I  do  not  deny 
that  in  the  Septuagint,  for  example,  hudor  and  hudata  are 
sometimes  promiscuously  used,  without  any  perceptible  differ- 
ence of  meaning.  In  most  cases,  however,  this  is  not  the  fact  j 
but  the  plural  hudata  is  used  to  designate  great  bodies  of 
water,  or  numerous  bodies  or  streams  of  it,  e.  g.  in  Gen.,  1: 
10,  20,  21,  22  ;  Exod.,  2:  19,  and  8  :  6,  and  15  :  27,  and  20  :  4, 
and  often  so  elsewhere.     The  promiscuous  use,  in  some  cases, 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  119 

cidedly  unfavorable  to  immersionists.  Look  at  the 
facts. 

1st.  In  no  single  instance  do  we  find  the  apostles 
either  going  to  streams  of  water,  or  going  out  of 
their  way  in  search  of  water,  or  delaying  the  baptism 
of  any  one,  or  of  any  number  of  persons  for  lack 
of  water.  Converts  were  uniformly  baptized  at  the 
time,  and  at  the  place  of  their  conversion. 

The  first  example  worthy  of  attention,  is  the  bap- 


of  hutjob.  and  httdata,  in  the  version  of  the  seventy,  seems  to 
be  the  result  of  imitating  the  Hebrew ;  for  the  Hebrew  has  only 
a  plural  form  to  designate  the  element  of  water." 

The  evidence  that  there  were  many  rivulets — not  a  deep 
stream  in  Enon — Stuart  thinks,  is  much  strengthened  by  the 
use  of  the  word  polla,  many.  He  says :  "  Why  should  the 
epithet  polla  be  added  to  hudata,  in  John  3  :  22-24,  if  merely 
deep  water,  or  a  quantity  sufficient  for  immersing,  was  intended  ? 
The  natural  and  primary  meaning  of  polltjs,  is  many,  in  oppo- 
sition to  few.  It  has  merely  a  secondary  meaning,  especially 
so  when  in  the  plural  number,  if  at  anytime  it  designates  large- 
ness of  quantity,  intensity  of  degree,  etc.  On  the  whole,  I 
cannot  divest  myself  of  the  impression,  that  there  seems  to  be 
something  extravagant  in  the  supposition,  that  not  only  the 
plural  htjdatAj  which  naturally  designates  a  large  quantity,  or 
many  streams  of  water,  but  also  polla  should  be  employed,  in 
order  to  designate  a  quantity  of  water  sufficient  for  baptizing 
by  immersion,  when  any  small  rivulet  would  furnish  abundant 
means  for  such  a  purpose.  I  cannot  avoid  the  belief,  therefore 
that  hudata  polla  is  designed,  as  Beza  says,  to  designate 
many  streams  or  rivulets.  John  chose  a  place  abounding  in 
these,  when  removed  from  the  banks  of  the  Jordan,  in  order 
that  the  multitudes  who  flocked  to  him  might  be  accommo- 
dated." 


120  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

tism  of  the  three  thousand  on  the  day  of  Pentecost. 
These  were  the  first  Christian  baptisms  ever  adminis- 
tered ;  and,  of  course,  they  would  be  looked  to  as  an 
example  to  be  followed.  Consequently,  the  inspired 
historian  might  be  expected  to  give  a  full  history 
of  all  that  was  of  importance.  In  reading  the  re- 
cord in  the  Acts,  our  attention  is  turned  to  several 
particalars:  1st.  The  place.  The  disciples  were 
together  in  a  house  in  Jerusalem.  It  is  not  possible 
that  three  thousand  persons  were  immersed  in  that 
house  in  one  day ;  and  no  intimation  is  given  that 
they  left  the  place  where  they  were  assembled  to  go 
after  water.  2d.  The  water.  Where  did  the  apostles 
find  sufficient  water  for  the  immersion  of  so  many  ? 
Did  they  leave  the  house  where  they  were  assembled  ? 
The  historian  does  not  intimate  anything  of  the  kind. 
If  they  left  the  house,  could  they  find  any  stream  of 
sufficient  depth?  There  is  no  such  stream  in  or  near 
Jerusalem.  Did  the  Jews,  who  had  so  recently 
crucified  our  Saviour ,  open  to  them  their  public  or 
private  baths,  cisterns,  etc?  Who  can  believe  it  r 
And  if  they  had,  would  not  a  fact  so  remarkable 
have  been  mentioned?  8d.  The  number.  Could 
the  twelve  apostles  baptize  three  thousand  persons 
in  that  day  ?  Immersiomsts  have  made  precise  cal- 
culations of  the  rapidity  with  which  persons  might 
be  immersed  ;  but  they  have  omitted  several  very  im- 
portant items,  as,  for  example,  how  long  Peter  was 
preaching,  before  the  converts  were  ready  for  bap- 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  121 

tism.  Luke  gives  a  very  brief:  outline  of  his  discourse, 
and  says:  "With  many  other  words  did  he  testify 
and  exhort."  Then  how  long  were  the  apostles  in 
determining  who  were  proper  subjects  for  baptism? 
What  time  did  it  require  to  find  places  for  baptizing  ? 
Some,  seeing  the  serious  difficulties  attending  the 
immersionist  theory,  have  supposed  that  others  be- 
sides the  apostles,  assisted  in  baptizing.  But  what 
other  persons  there  were  authorized  to  baptize? 
Others  have  ventured  to  guess  that  the  whole  number 
were  not  baptized  on  that  day ;  but  this  conjecture  is 
directly  in  the  face  of  the  inspired  record — "Then 
they  that  gladly  received  the  word  were  baptized ; 
and  the  same  day  there  were  added  to  them  three 
thousand  souls."  4th.  But  how,  on  the  theory  of 
immersionists,  are  we  to  account  for  the  profound 
silence  of  Luke  concerning  all  these  matters  ?  Not 
a  word  does  he  say  about  going  to  any  water,  or 
about  any  delay  or  difficulty  for  want  of  water. 

Now,  if  these  baptisms  were  administered  by  pour- 
ing or  sprinkling,  every  difficulty  disappears,  and  the 
whole  account  is  both  credible  and  perfectly  natural. 
But  the  supposition  that  the  three  thousand  were 
immersed,  is  attended  with  insuperable  difficulties. 
We  cannot  but  commend  the  prudence  of  Mr.  Camp- 
bell in  passing  by  these  first  Christian  baptisms 
without  a  single  remark,  or  the  slightest  notice ! 

2d.  In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  we  read  of  multi- 
tudes added  to  the  church  from  time  to  time  ;  but  in 
11* 


122  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

no  instance  do  we  find  the  apostles  or  their  fellow- 
laborers  going  out  of  their  way  for  water,  or  delaying 
the  administration  of  the  ordinance  for  want  of  it. 
In  this  same  country,  our  immersionist  friends  assure 
us,  it  was  necessary  for  John  the  Baptist  to  go  to 
Jordan  and  to  Enon,  to  find  water  to  immerse  ;  but 
the  apostles,  it  would  seem,  found  abundance  of 
water  to  immerse  very  far  greater  numbers  !  Truly, 
the  cause  of  immersion  draws  rather  largely  upon 
our  credulity. 

3d.  In  every  instance  where  a  particular  account  of 
the  administration  of  baptism  is  given  in  the  Acts, 
the  circumstances  are  most  decidedly  against  the  idea 
of  immersion.  If  the  baptism  of  the  eunuch  be 
considered  an  exception  to  this  general  statement,  we 
will  presently  notice  it  particularly. 

Paul  received  baptism  in  the  right  mode.  Where 
was  he,  when  baptized  ?  He  was  in  the  house  of 
Judas,  in  the  city  of  Damascus.  Did  he  leave  the 
house  to  be  baptized  ?  Nothing  of  the  kind  is  in- 
timated ;  nor  was  his  condition  very  favorable  for  a 
walk  to  a  stream  of  water.  In  what  position  was  he 
baptized?  Ananias  said  to  him:  "Arise,  (anas- 
/<zs,)  and  be  baptized  ;"  "  and  he  arose,  (anastas,) 
and  was  baptized."  *  Now,  the  obvious  meaning  of 
this  language  is,  that  at  the  bidding  of  Ananias, 
Paul  rose  to  his  feet,  from  a  recumbent  or  sitting 

*  Compare  Acts,  9  :  and  22. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  123 

position,  and  thus  was  baptized.  Mr.  Campbell, 
laying  aside  the  prudence  which  led  him  to  pass  in 
silence  several  other  difficulties,  attempts  to  defend 
his  cause  against  this  clear,  conclusive  case.  He 
says  :  "  Almost  every  orator,  indeed,  in  a  persuasive 
and  hortatory  address,  in  our  language,  uses  the 
term  rise,  when  an  erect  position,  or  a  mere  change 
of  position  is  never  thought  of."  He  gives  the  fol- 
lowing illustrations:  "Rise,  citizens!  Rise,  sin- 
ners !  Rise,  men,  and  let  us  do  our  duty."  *  u  In 
this  common-sense  import  of  the  term,"  says  he, 
"  did  Ananias  address  Paul."  But  there  are  two 
serious  difficulties  in  the  way  of  this  exposition,  viz : 

1st.  Ananias  was  not  playing  the  orator,  address- 
ing an  audience  in  impassioned  exhortation.  He  was 
deliberately  and  solemnly  delivering  a  divine  message 
to  a  single  individual. 

2d.  Luke  giving  the  history  of  this  affair  in  ano- 
ther chapter,  says,  Paul  "  arose,  and  was  baptized. "f 
Here,  even  Mr.  Campbell  will  not  pretend  to  find 
"  a  persuasive  or  hortatory  address."  It  is  a  simple, 
plain  narrative.  Now,  if  we  were  to  admit  that  the 
address  of  Ananias  to  Paul  might  bear  the  exposition 
given  by  Mr.  Campbell,  the  difficulty  which  presses 
the  cause  of  immersion  would  not  be  removed ;  for 
it  is  certain  that  the  language  of  Luke,  recording  the 
event,  admits  of  no  such  explanation. 

*  p.  170  f  Acts,  9, 


124  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

Mr.  Campbell  did  not  entirely  lose  his  prudence 
in  arguing  this  point ;  for  he  confines  himself,  in  his 
criticisms,  wholly  to  the  language  of  Ananias,  in 
Acts,  22:  16,  making  not  the  slightest  allusion 
to  the  language  of  Luke,  recording  the  baptism  of 
Paul,  in  the  ninth  chapter  !  And  yet  it  is  impossi- 
ble that  he  could  be  ignorant  of  the  fact,  that  it  is 
chiefly  upon  this  last  that  Pedo-baptists  found  their 
argument.  Why  did  he  not  meet  the  question  fairly  ? 
The  same  unfairness  we  had  occasion,  several  years 
ago,  to  expose  in  Rev.  Mr.  Malcom,  then  President 
of  Georgetown  College. 

Luke  says  of  Paul:  "  Jlnasfas  ebaptisthe" 
literally  translated,  arising  or  standing  up,  he 
was  baptized.  From  a  multitude  of  examples  which 
might  be  adduced,  we  give  a  few,  that  the  unlearned 
reader  may  judge  of  the  soundness  of  our  argument. 
"  And  the  high  priest  arose,  {anastas^  and  said  to 
him,"  etc.*  "  And  the  high  priest  stood  up  (anas- 
tas)  in  their  midst,  and  asked  Jesus,"  etct  "And 
in  those  days,  Peter  stood  up  (anastas')  in  the  midst 
of  the  disciples,  and  said,",  etc. J  "  Then  stood 
there  up  (anastas)  one  in  the  council,  and  said," 
etc.§  "  And  he  arose,  (anastas,)  and  followed 
him."  ||  In  every  instance,  the  participle  anastas 
expresses   the  act  of    rising   to  the   feet:  and   the 

*  Matt.,  26  :  62.  f  Mark,  14 :  50.         $  Acts,  1 :  15 

§  Acts,  5 :  34.  ||  Matt.,  9 :  9. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  125 

action  following  is  performed  in  a  standing  position. 
Is  it  not  clear,  then,  that  Paul  rose  to  his  feet,  and 
in  that  position  was  baptized  ?  The  very  fact  that 
Mr.  Campbell  has  kept  out  of  view  the  passage  on 
which,  as  he  knew,  the  Pedo-baptist  argument  is 
chiefly  based,  proves  that  he  felt  himself  unable  to 
grapple  with  it. 

Cornelius  and  his  family  were  the  first  Gentiles 
who  received  Christian  baptism.  Where  were  they 
baptized?  Peter  instructed  them  in  the  house  of 
Cornelius  ;  and  when  he  saw  that  God  had  accepted 
them,  he  said,  "  Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that 
these  should  not  be  baptized  ?  "  But  not  one  inti- 
mation is  given,  that  they  left  the  house  for  the 
purpose  of  being  baptized  ;  and  not  a  word  is  uttered 
which  looks  toward  immersion.* 

The  same  may  be  said  of  the  baptism  of  the  jailor 
and  his  family.f  They  were  baptized  after  mid- 
night, and  in  the  prison.  Not  an  intimation  is  given 
that  they  left  the  prison,  and  not  a  word  indicating 
immersion. 

But  was  not  the  eunuch  immersed?  This,  let  it 
be  noted,  is  the  only  example  of  Christian  baptism 
to  which  immersionists  appeal,  as  favoring  their 
views  !  Only  think  of  it — but  a  solitary  instance  of 
Christian  baptism  in  the  New  Testament,  to  which 
immersionists  themselves  appeal!     But  was  not  the 

*  Acts,  10.  f  Acts,  16. 


126  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

eunuch  immersed  ?  The  only  evidence  that  he  was 
immersed,  is  in  the  following  language  :  u  And  they 
went  down  both  into  the  water,  etc.,  and  when  they 
were  come  up  out  of  the  water,"  etc.  Now,  let  us 
admit  what  Professor  Stuart  has  shown  cannot  be 
proved — that  both  Philip  and  the  eunuch  went  liter- 
ally into  the  water,  and  that  this  fact  might  seem  to 
favor  immersion.  Yet  the  place  was  a  desert  * 
where  it  is  not  at  all  probable  that  sufficient  water 
could  be  found  to  immerse  a  man.  Besides,  we  read 
of  no  change  of  garments  ;  nor  is  a  solitary  circum- 
stance mentioned,  which  looks  towards  immersion. 
The  probabilities,  therefore,  seem  quite  as  strong, 
to  say  the  least,  in  favor  of  2ioitri?ig,  as  of  immer- 
sion. 

We  pass,  for  the  present,  all  those  criticisms  upon 
the  prepositions,  which  might  strengthen  our  argu- 
ment. They  are  not  needed  to  sustain  the  mode  of 
baptism  for  which  we  are  contending.  "We  can  afford 
to  leave  out  of  view  many  arguments  which  are  not 
destitute  of  weight. 


LETTER  IX. 

Dear  Sir  :    I  have  said  that  we   can  admit  all 
that  is  affirmed  by  immersionists,    concerning   the 

*  Acts,  8 :  26. 


MODE  OP  BAPTISM.  127 

Greek  prepositions,  and  yet  successfully  vindicate 
our  views  of  the  mode  of  baptism.  Let  it  be  ad- 
mitted that  our  Saviour,  after  being  baptized,  "  went 
up  strait- way  out  of  the  water,"  and  that  Philip  and 
the  eunuch  "  went  down  both  into  the  water,"  and 
"  came  up  out  of  the  water  ;  "  is  there  any  certainty 
that  the  baptism,  which  was  administered  after  they 
got  into  the  water,  was  performed  by  immersion  ? 
Does  not  the  cause  of  immersion  rest  here  upon  an 
uncertain  inference  ?  As  John  was  baptizing  at 
Jordan,  there  would  be  no  inconvenience  to  persons 
in  stepping  into  the  water  to  receive  the  ordinance 
by  pouring ;  and  many  of  the  ancients  believed 
that  John  administered  baptism  by  pouring  water  on 
persons  standing  in  the  river.  ' '  Not  a  few  of  the 
ancients,"  says  Dr.  Pond,  "  entertained  the  opinion 
that  John  baptized  by  pouring.  After  this  manner, 
Aurelius  Prudentius,  who  wrote  A.  D.  390,  repre- 
sents him  as  baptizing — Perfundit  Jluvio,  etc. — 
He  poured  water  upon  them  in  the  river.  A  few 
years  later,  Paulinus,  bishop  of  Nola,  says,  '  He 
(John  Baptist)  washes  away  the  sins  of  believers 
{infusis  lymphis)  by  the  pouring  of  water.'  Nu- 
merous ancient  pictures  represent  Christ  as  having 
been  baptized  by  pouring.  Bernard  speaks  of  John 
as  having  baptized  his  Lord  after  this  manner :  '  In- 
fundit  aquam  capite  Creatoris  creatura" — The 
creature  poured  water  on  the  head  of  the  Crea- 


128  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

tor."  *  If,  then,  we  admit  that  both  the  adminis- 
trator and  the  subject  went  into  water,  there  is  no 
certainty  that  the  ordinance  was  administered  by 
immersion. 

But  is  there  any  satisfactory  evidence  that  they 
did  go  into  the  water  ?  Much  importance  has  been 
attached  to  the  language  of  Matthew  concerning 
Christ's  baptism.  Professor  Stuart  adduces  two 
arguments  to  prove  that  our  Saviour  did  not  emerge 
from  the  water.  The  first  is,  that  the  word  ana- 
baino,  translated  went  up,  is  not  used  in  such  a 
sense.  li  This  verb,"  says  he,  "  means  to  ascend, 
mount,  go  up,  viz :  a  ship,  a  hill,  an  eminence,  a 
chariot,  a  tree,  a  horse,  a  rostrum,  etc.  But  as  to 
emerging  from  water,  I  can  find  no  such  meaning 
attached  to  it.  The  Greeks  have  a  proper  word  for 
this,  and  one  continually  employed  by  the  ecclesias- 
tical fathers,  in  order  to  designate  emerging  from 
the  water ;  and  this  is  anaduo,  which  means  to  come 
up  out  of  the  water,  the  ground,'5  etc.  The  New 
Testament,  he  asserts,  affords  no  example  of  the 
use  of  anabaino  in  the  sense  of  emerging  from 
water. 

The  second  argument  is,  that  the  preposition  apo, 
translated  out  of,  i  '  will  not  allow  such  a  construc- 
tion." "  I  have  found  no  example,"  he  says,  "where 
it  is  applied  to  indicate  a  movement  out  of  a  liquid 

*  Pond  on  Baptism,,  p.  38. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  129 

into  the  air."  Indeed,  no  scholar  will  pretend  that 
apo  expresses  definitely  going  out  of  a  thing.  It 
means  simply  from.  It  is,  however,  not  necessary 
to  take  so  strong  ground  as  does  Professor  Stuart* 
It  is  enough  to  assert,  (what  no  scholar  will  deny,) 
that  if  our  Saviour  was  on  the  margin  of  the  river, 
not  at  all  in  it,  his  ascent  up  the  banks  would  be 
properly  expressed  by  the  very  language  used  by 
Matthew — anebe  apo.  There  is,  therefore,  no  evi- 
dence that  he  was  literally  in  the  water. 

Nor  can  it  be  proved,  that  Philip  and  the  eunuch 
went  into  the  water.  The  words  translated  went 
down  into,  are  katabaino  eis.  Evidently,  the 
word  katabaino  can  express  nothing  more  than  de- 
scending from  the  chariot  to  the  water.  If  they 
went  into  it,  this  must  be  expressed  by  eis.  Now, 
it  is  true  that  eis  does  sometimes  signify  into  ;  but 
it  cannot  be  denied,  that  about  as  frequently  it  means 
simply  to.  "  So  common,  indeed,"  says  Stuart, 
u  is  the  meaning  of  eis,  when  it  designates  direction 
to  a  place,  or  toward  it,  that  Bretschneider  has 
given  this  as  its  first  and  leading  signification.'' 
Of  the  following  examples,  the  unlearned  reader  can 
judge  as  well  as  the  scholar:  "  Go  thou  to  (eis) 
the  sea,  and  cast  a  hook."  *  «  Peter,  therefore, 
went  forth,  and  that  other  disciple,  and  came  to 
(eis)  the  sepulchre — and  the  other  disciple  did  out- 


12 


130  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

rim  Peter,  and  came  first  to  {eis)  the  sepulchre — ■ 
yet  went  he  not  in."  "  And  he  was  nigh  unto  {eis) 
Jericho."  "  He  went  before  ascending  up  to  {ana- 
bainon  eis)  Jerusalem ;  and  it  came  to  pass,  when 
he  was  come  nigh  to  {eis)  Bathpage  and  Bethany." 
"  Arise,  and  go  toward  the  south  unto  the  way  that 
goeth  down  from  Jerusalem  unto  {eis)  Gaza,"  etc. 
Examples  might  easily  be  multiplied,  bu^  these  are 
sufficient  to  show  that  the  word  eis  would  take  Philip 
and  the  eunuch  to  the  water,  but  not  certainly  fur- 
ther. 

The  words  translated  "  come  up  out  of  the  wa- 
ter "  are  anabaino  ek.  Stuart,  as  we  have  seen, 
strongly  maintains  that  anabaino  does  not  properly 
express  the  idea  of  emerging  from  a  fluid.  It  is 
not  necessary,  however,  to  take  so  strong  ground. 
It  is  enough  for  us,  that  as  katabaino  eis  expresses 
going  down  to  the  water,  so  anabaino  ek  expresses 
ascending  from  it.  The  following  examples  will 
show  how  the  word  ek  is  commonly  used  ;  "  And  he 
riseth  from  {ek)  supper,  and  laid  aside  his  gar- 
ments," etc.  "  When  he  shall  return  from  {ek)  the 
wedding."  "  And  they  shall  gather  together  his 
elect  from  {ek)  the  four  winds."  "  For  a  friend 
of  mine  in  (or  from,  ek)  his  journey  is  come  to 
me."  "  For  she  came  from  {ek)  the  uttermost 
parts  of  the  earth." 

Evidently,  then,  nothing  more  can  be  proved  from 
the  language  used  with  reference  to  Philip  and  the 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  131 

eunuch,  than  that  they  descended  from  the  chariot 
to  the  water,  which,  in  all  probability,  was  only  a 
spring,  and  that  they  ascended  from  it.  As  Stuart 
well  remarks,  "  Whether  the  person  thus  going  down 
eis  to  hudor  (to  the  water)  enters  into  it  or  not, 
must  be  designated  in  some  other  way  than  by  this 
expression,  which  itself  leaves  the  matter  in  uncer- 
tainty." Dr.  Dick,  Professor  of  Theology  in  the 
the  United  Session  Church,  takes  the  same  view.  He 
says :  "It  is  certain  that  eis  does  sometimes  signify 
into,  and  ek,  out  of;  but  it  is  equally  certain  that 
at  other  times  the  proper  translation  of  the  one  is 
to,  and  of  the  other,  is  from.  When  Jesus  came — 
eis  mnemeion  —  to  the  Sepulchre  of  Lazarus, 
(John,  11 :  38,)  we  know  that  he  did  not  enter  into 
it ;  and  when  ships  came  from  Tiberias — ek  Tibe- 
riados — (John,  6  :  23,)  we  do  not  suppose  that  they 
sailed  out  of  the  midst  of  the  city,  but  that  that  was 
the  place  from  which  their  voyage  commenced.  The 
The  preposition  ek  simply  signifies  the  point  from 
which  a  movement  is  made.  In  the  present  case, 
nothing  more  is  intimated  by  the  sacred  historian, 
than  that  Philip  and  the  eunuch  went  to  the  place 
where  they  saw  water,  and  that  after  baptism  they 
both  left  it."  Led.  on  Theology,  p.  471.  Scott, 
the  learned  commentator,  says  :  "  The  various  ways 
in  which  the  prepositions  en  and  eis,  which  are  em- 
ployed on  this  subject,  are  rendered  in  English  in  our 
authorized  version  on  other  subjects,  must  convince 


132  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

any  one  who  examines  it,  that  no  weight  can  be  laid 
upon  them  in  controversial  discussion  ;  though  the 
sound  of  the  word  may  influence  a  mere  English 
reader."     Comment,  on  Matt.,  3:6* 

The  argument  from  the  prepositions,  then,  stands 
thus :  If  we  admit  all  that  immersionists  affirm  con- 


*  It  may  be  interesting  to  our  readers  to  see  the  substance  of 
Professor  Stuart's  criticism  on  this  point.     It  is  as  follows : 

Did  Philip  and  the  eunuch  go  into  the  water  ?  Or  did  they 
simply  descend  to  it,  and  ascend  from  it  ?  On  this  point,  Pro- 
fessor Stuart  says :  "  Such  a  collection  of  water  is  usually,  of 
course,  in  some  valley  or  ravine.  Hence  it  is  said,  in  v.  38, 
f  They  went  down  eis  to  hudor,  to  the  water,  as  some  would 
render  it,  or  into  the  water,  as  others  insist  it  should  be  trans- 
lated.' Does  eis  in  this  case,  admit  of  either  sense  ?  And 
which  is  to  be  preferred?  That  eis,  with  the  verb  katabaino, 
(which  is  used  in  Acts  8 :  38,)  often  means  going  down  to  a 
place,  is  quite  certain ;  e.  g.  John  2  :  12,  {  Jesus  went  down  to 
(eis)  Capernaum  j  '  Acts,  7  :  15,  i  Jacob  went  down  to  (eis) 
Egypt;'  Acts,  14:  25,  '  They  went  down  to  (eis)  Attalia;' 
Acts,  16  :  8,  <  They  went  down  to  (eis)  Troas  ;'  Acts,  18  :  22, 
'He  went  down  to  (eis)  Antioch;'  Acts,  25:  6,  '  Going  down 
to  (eis)  Cesarea;  comp.  Luke,  10:  30,  18:  14;  Acts,  8:  26, 
et  al.  So  common,  indeed,  is  the  meaning  of  eis,  when  it 
designates  direction  to  a  place,  or  toward  it,  that  Bretschneider 
has  given  this  as  its  first  and  leading  signification ;  but  I 
have  confined  my  examples  to  its  connection  with  katabaino. 
On  the  other  hand,  I  find  but  one  passage  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, where  it  seems  to  mean  into,  when  used  with  the  verb 
katabaino.  This  in  Roman,  10 :  7 :  c  Who  shall  go  down  eis 
abusson,  into  the  abyss.'  Even  here,  the  sense  to  is  good. 
And,  in  fact,  when  one  analyizes  the  idea  of  katabainon, 
going  down,  descending,  he  finds  that  it  indicates  the  action 
performed  before  reaching  a  place,  the  approximation  to  it  by 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  183 

cerning  their  meaning,  they  prove  nothing  decidedly 
in  favor  of  immersion.  Bat  they  will  not  even  take 
persons  into  the  water,  much  less  will  they  immerse 
them. 


descent,  real  or  supposed,  and  not  the  entering  into  it.  Eiser- 
chomai  is  the  appropriate  word  for  entering  into ;  or  rather 
(in  distinction  from  katabaino)  embaino  is  the  appropriate 
word,  to  signify  entrance  into  any  place  or  thing.  Hence  I 
must  conclude,  on  the  whole,  that  although  in  several  of  the 
above  cases  of  katabaino  with  eis,  we  may  translate  eis  by 
into  and  still  make  good  sense  in  English ;  yet  the  real  and 
appropriate  signification  of  this  phraseology  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment seems  plainly  to  be,  going  to  a  place,"  etc. 

I  must  come,  then,  to  the  conclusion,  that  katebesan  ampho- 
teroi  eis  to  hudor,  in  Acts,  8  :  38,  does  neither  necessarily  nor 
probably  mean,  they  descended  into  the  water.  This  conclusion 
is  rendered  nearly  certain,  by  the  exact  counterpart  or  anti- 
thesis of  this  expression,  which  is  found  in  v.  39,  where,  after 
the  baptism,  it  is  said  anebesen  ek  tou  hudatos — they  went 
up  from  the  water.  We  have  seen  that  anabaino  is  never  em- 
ployed in  the  sense  of  emerging  from  a  liquid  substance.  The 
preposition  ek,  here,  would  agree  well  with  this  idea ;  but  ana- 
baino forbids  us  thus  to  construe  it.  As,  then,  to  go  up  from  the 
water,  is  to  ascend  the  bank  of  a  stream,  pool,  fountain ;  so  to 
go  down  to  the  water,  is  to  go  down  the  bank  of  such  stream, 
fountain,  or  pool,  and  to  come  to  the  water.  Whether  the  per- 
son thus  going  down  eis  to  hudor,  enters  into  it  or  not,  must  be 
designated  in  some  other  way  than  by  this  expression,  which  of 
itself  leaves  the  matter  in  uncertainty." 


12* 


134  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


LETTER  X. 


Bear  Sir  :  We  have  examined  some  six  differ- 
ent classes  of  evidence,  and  found  them  all  against 
the  exclusive  claims  of  immersionists.  Let  us  now 
see  what  light  is  thrown  upon  this  subject  by  the 
nature  and  design  of  baptism. 

Nothing  respecting  the  mode  of  administering  the 
ordinance  can  be  learned  either  from  the  name  of 
the  Trinity,  or  from  the  person  administering  ;  but 
something  may  be  learned  from  the  significance  of 
the  ordinance. 

What  reference  has  baptism  to  the  burial  of 
Christ?  Immersionists  have  relied  very  much  on 
Horn.,  6:  4,  as  conclusive  in  favor  of  their  views; 
and  not  a  few  Pedo-baptists  have  seemed  willing  to 
admit,  in  this  passage,  a  reference  to  immersion. 
We  propose,  therefore,  to  examine  it  with  some  care. 
Let  the  reader  turn  to  the  passage,  and  read  it  in  its 
entire  connection.  Then  we  suggest  for  his  exami- 
nation two  questions  : 

1.  What  is  the  apostle  seeking  to  prove?  He 
is  answering  the  objection  urged  by  some  against  the 
doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  without  the  works 
of  the  law — that  it  encourages  men  to  live  in  sin. 
Grace,  he  had  said,  abounds  the  more  where  sin  has 
abounded.  He  anticipates  the  objection,  and  asks, 
whether  it  follows  from  this  doctrine,  that  men  may 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  135 

continue  in  sin  that  grace  may  abound  ?  He  denies 
the  consequence,  and  proves  that  the  Gospel,  whilst 
it  offers  justification  by  grace,  also  imparts  sanctifi- 
cation — that  those  who  are  delivered  by  Jesus  Christ 
from  the  curse  of  the  law,  are,  at  the  same  time, 
delivered  from  the  power  and  pollution  of  sin.  As 
Christ  died  for  sin,  so  the  believer  dies  to  sin. 
As  Christ  was  buried,  and  rose  again,  so  the  be- 
liever is  buried,  as  to  u  the  old  man,"  and  rises  to 
a  new  and  holy  life.  Three  figures  are  employed  in 
expressing  this  truth,  viz  :  burial,  planting,  and  cru- 
cificxion. 

2.  What  connection  has  baptism  with  this 
change  in  the  heart  and  life  of  the  believer  ?  It 
is  the  ordinance  which  visibly  identifies  him  with 
Christ  in  his  death,  burial,  and  resurrection.  "  How 
shall  we,"  the  apostle  asks,  "  that  are  dead  to  sin, 
live  any  longer  therein  ?  "  But  how  does  it  appear 
that  the  believer  is  dead  to  sin  ?  Because,  in  being 
baptized  in  the  name  of  Christ,  he  professed  faith  in 
the  saving  efficacy  of  his  death,  and  was  conse- 
quently baptized  into  his  death,  and  thus  became 
identified  with  him  in  his  death,  burial,  and  resurrec- 
tion. Now,  since  Jesus  Christ  died  to  deliver  his 
people  from  the  dominion,  as  well  as  from  the  curse 
of  sin,  the  true  believer  dies  to  sin,  puts  off  the  old 
man  with  his  deeds,  and  rises,  as  Jesus  rose,  to  a 
new  and  holy  life. 

That  such  is  the  meaning  of  the  passage,  seems 


136  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

clear  from  the  whole  connection.  It  is  in  precise 
accordance  with  the  object  of:  the  apostle's  argument, 
and  it  gives  a  consistent  exposition  of  the  language 
itself.  The  death  is  spiritual — a  death  to  sin ;  the 
resurrection  is  spiritual — to  a  new  life.  The  burial, 
therefore,  must  be  spiritual — a  pueting  off  the  old 
sinful  nature. 

The  admission  of  some  Pedo-baptists,  that  there 
is  probably  a  reference  here  to  immersion,  as  it 
seems  to  us,  is  not  warranted  by  the  language  of 
Paul,  especially  when  we  remember  how  little  resem- 
blance there  is  between  burying,  as  it  was  practiced 
among  the  Jews,  and  the  plunging  of  the  human 
body  into  water ;  and  how  little  significance  such  a 
reference  would  have  amongst  Roman  Christians, 
who  were  familiar  with  the  burning  of  dead  bodies, 
and  gathering  up  the  ashes,  and  placing  them  in  an 
urn.  Additional  force  is  given  to  this  argument 
by  the  fact  that  in  Coloss.,  2  :  11,  12,  this  spiritual 
burial  is  identical  with  spiritual  circumcision,  which 
is  nothing  else  but  sanctification. 

Let  it  be  remembered  that  Mr.  Campbell  himself 
has  contended  that  in  the  Scriptures,  baptism  is  an 
ablution.  It  is  "  the  washing  of  water."  *  It  is  "the 
washing  of  regeneration."  t  It  is  the  emblematic 
washing  away  of  sins.  J     Now,  such  being  the  pre- 

*  Eph.,  5  :  21.  t  Titus,  3  :  5. 

%  Acts,  22 :  16. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  137 

cise  meaning  of  baptism,  who  does  not  see  that  pour- 
ing or  sprinkling  is  quite  as  expressive  o£  cleansing 
as  immersing,  and  even  more  so  ?  Can  any  reason 
be  given,  why  an  ordinance,  the  meaning  of  which  is 
cleansing,  should  be  performed  in  the  latter  mode, 
rather  than  in  the  former  ? 

But,  Mr.  Campbell,  who  glories  in  his  originality, 
imagines  that  he  has  made  a  new  and  most  important 
discovery  in  relation  to  pouring  and  sprinkling.  He 
has  a  chapter  on  legal  sprinklings,  which  contains 
the  following  as  its  leading  proposition:  "That 
sprinkling  or  pouring  mere  water  on  any  person  or 
thing  for  any  moral,  ceremonial,  or  religious  use, 
was  never  done  by  the  authority  of  God  since  the 
world  began."  This  proposition  he  regards  as  likely 
to  settle  the  whole  controversy !  "It  will  put  an  end 
to  this  everlasting  strife  about  foreign  authorities, 
Greek  verbs,  nouns,  and  prepositions.  It  will  decide 
the  wavering  ;  it  will  strengthen  the  weak  ;  it  will 
confound  opposition  ;  it  will  silence  every  demur.'  * 
To  this  rather  amusing  boast,  we  have  two  or  three 
answers,  viz : 

1.  It  is  a  fact,  that  God  did  command  several 
washings  with  mere  water — as,  for  example,  that  of 
Aaron  and  his  sons  at  the  door  of  the  Tabernacle  ; 
and  as  Mr.  C.  admits  that  washing  includes  pouring 
and  sprinkling,  he  cannot  deny  that  the  washing  in 

•p.  171, 


138  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

question  might  have  been  performed  thus.  Nay, 
more ;  since  Aaron  and  his  sons  were  to  be  washed 
at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  in  the  wilderness,  it  is 
quite  certain  that  the  ceremony  was  performed  by 
pouring  or  sprinkling.  Mr.  Campbell  mentions  six- 
teen distinct  bathings  in  the  law  of  Moses,  and  adds, 
"  These  washings  or  bathings  are  uniformly  expressed 
by  lotto ,  and  contrasted  with  pourings  and  sprink- 
lings. How  the  bathing  was  accomplished  we  are 
not  told,  only  that  it  was  not  done  by  pouring  or 
sprinkling."*  Now,  it  is  true,  as  he  says,  that 
these  washings  are  uniformly  expressed  by  lono,  in 
Greek,  and  they  are  as  uniformly  expressed  by 
rahatz.  in  Hebrew.  These  words,  as  Mr.  Campbell 
admits,  signify  washing,  and  do  not  express  any 
particular  mode  of  doing  it.  It  is  not  true,  how- 
ever, that  they  are  "  contrasted  with  pourings  and 
sprinklings."  They  stand  in  connection  with  the 
sprinkling  of  water  and  blood  or  of  water  and  ashes, 
but  they  do  not,  in  a  single  instance,  stand  in  con- 
trast with  pouring  or  sprinkling.  Moreover,  it  is 
not  true;  that  the  Scriptures  intimate,  either  directly 
or  indirectly,  that  those  washings  were  not  performed 
by  pouring  or  sprinkling.  Not  a  word  is  used  which 
expresses  Mr.  Campbell's  "action."  What,  then, 
is  his  important  proposition  worth  ? 

2.  The  question  between  us  and  the  immersionists, 

*  p.  174. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  139 

is  iiot  concerning  the  fluid  to  be  used,  but  concern^ 
ing  the  mode  of  usitig  it.  Baptism,  it  is  admitted, 
is  an  ablution — a  cleansing.  Is  the  application  of 
"Water  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  an  appropriate  em- 
blem of  purification  ?  God  himself  answers  the 
question — "  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon 
you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean  :  from  all  your  filthiness, 
and  from  all  your  idols  will  I  cleanse  you.  A  new 
heart,  also,  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  will  I 
put  within  you,"  etc.*  Here  the  application  of 
water  by  sprinkling,  is  the  divinely  chosen  emblem 
of  spiritual  cleansing — the  precise  thing  of  which 
Christian  baptism  is  the  emblem.  How,  then,  can  it 
be  possible  that  baptism,  thus  administered,  is  not 
both  valid  and  scriptural  ?  Let  it  be  admitted, 
though  it  cannot  be  proved,  that  the  reference  of 
Ezekiel  is  to  the  water  into  which  the  ashes  of  a 
blood-red  heifer  had  been  cast ;  what  then  ?  It  is 
only  the  fitter  type  of  Christian  baptism,  which  is 
the  emblem  of  a  blood-bought  purification.  But  the 
casting  of  the  ashes  into  the  water,  can  have  no 
effect  on  the  significancy  of  sprinkling.  Besides, 
this  is  a  prophecy  which  looks  to  the  conversion  of 
the  Jews  to  Christianity,  when  they  would,  of  course, 
receive  Christian  baptism,  the  sprinkling  of  clean 
water. 

In  precise  accordance  with  this,  is  the  prediction 

*  Ezekiel,  36  s  25,  26, 


140  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

concerning  Christ.  "  So  shall  he  sprinkle  many 
nations."  *  Mr.  Campbell  would  evade  the  force  of 
this  passage,  by  referring  to  Junius  and  Tremellius, 
who  understand  it  to  mean  to  sprinkle  with  aston~ 
ishment ;  and  to  the  Septuagint,  which  has  the  same 
idea.  But  the  undeniable  fact  is,  that  the  Hebrew  word 
uniformly  means  to  sprinkle  ;  and  to  sprinkle  ivith 
astonishment,  is  a  phrase  most  extraordinary,  which 
has  nothing  resembling  it  in  the  Scriptures.  Besides, 
the  prophet's  theme  is  the  redemption  of  men  by 
Jesus  Christ ;  and,  therefore,  the  idea  of  sprink- 
ling, in  order  to  cleanse — an  idea  familiar  in  the 
Old  Testament—is  far  more  appropriate. 

The  fact,  however,  is  clear  beyond  cavil,  that  pour- 
ing  or  sprinkling  is  an  appropriate  and  scriptural 
mode  of  representing  spiritual  cleansing ;  and  this 
is  certainly  the  meaning  of  baptism,  Mr.  C.  himself 
being  judge. 
We  may  as  well  now  state  one  or  two  facts,  viz : 
1.  Not  one  jiersonal  immersion  is  required  in 
the  law  of:  Moses.  Many  washings  were  prescribed 
for  the  different  kinds  of  uncleanness ;  but  on  no 
occasion  was  the  Jew  commanded  to  immerse  himself 
in  water.  We  state  the  fact,  and  defy  contradiction. 
2.  fin  every  instance  in  which  the  mode  of  cere- 
monial cleansing  was  prescribed  in  the  law  of  Moses, 

*  Isaiah,  52  :  15. 

f  See  See  Levit,  14 :  7,  51  j  Num.,  8  :  8,  and  19 :  18,  19. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  141 

that  mode  was  sprinkling.  Now  is  it  not  amazing, 
that  the  very  mode  of  cleansing  chosen  by  God,  and 
repeatedly  alluded  to  by  the  prophets,  should  be 
thought  so  unsuitable  in  these  last  days,  as  to  be 
pronounced  invalid .?— the  more  amazing,  since  the 
Jews  had  no  immersion,  and  had  "  divers  bap- 
tisms," (washings.)  We  place  these  facts  by  the 
side  of  Mr.  Campbell's  important  proposition,  and* 
let  the  candid  reader  decide  which  should  have  the 
greater  weight  in  this  argument* 

This  argument  is  greatly  strengthened  by  the  re- 
markable fact,  that  the  Holy  Spirit,  of  whose  sanc- 
tifying influence  baptism  is  the  emblem,  is  uniformly 
represented  as  poured  out  upon  persons  ;  and  in  no 
instance  are  they  said  to  be  immersed  into  the 
Spirit.  Thus  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  is  declared  to  be  the  fulfilment  of 
the  prophecy  of  Joel — "  And  it  shall  come  to  pass, 
in  the  last  days,  saith  God,  I  will  pour  out  of  my 
Spirit  on  all  flesh,"  etc.*  And  the  spiritual  bap- 
tism of  Cornelius  and  his  family  is  spoken  of  thus : 
"  The  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all  them,"  etc.  t 

But,  says  Mr.  Campbell,  "  There  can  possibly 
be  no  analogy  between  the  pouring  of  water  and  the 
pouring  out  of  the  Spirit.  There  is  no  resemblance 
between  Spirit  and  water ,"  etc.  J     How,  then,  we 


Acts,  2  :  16, 17.  f  Acts,  10  :  44. 

J  p.  162. 

13 


142  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

ask  Mr,  Campbell,  did  the  inspired  writers  come  to 
use  the  phrase,  outpouring  of  the  Spirit,  if  there 
be  no  analogy,  and,  consequently,  no  propriety  in 
the  figure  ?  The  simple  truth  is,  1st.  That  the  work 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  purifying  the  hearts  of  meny 
is  represented  in  baptism  by  water,  which  has  the 
quality  of  cleansing  ;  and  because,  in  the  ceremo- 
nial purifications  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  the 
baptism  of  the  New  Testament,  water  was  applied 
by  pouring  or  sprinkling,  the  Holy  Spirit  was 
spoken  of  as  poured  out.  The  figure  was,  of  course, 
borrowed  from  the  prevalent  custom  of  baptizing  by 
pouring.  If  not,  whence  arose  this  mode  of  speak- 
ing of  the  Spirit's  influence?  Can  Mr.  Campbell 
tell  us  ? 

a  But  the  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit,"  says  Mr. 
Campbell,  "  is  never  called  baptism.  It  is,  strictly, 
the  preparation  for  it,  just  as  the  tanner  or  fuller 
pours  out  water  in  his  vat,  in  order  to  prepare  for 
immersing  into  it  the  subject  of  these  processes. 
So  God  poured  out  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  most 
copiously  on  Pentecost,  that  the  disciples  might  be 
subjected  to,  or  immersed  in  all  these  influences. " 
Again,  u  The  influence  of  the  Spirit  poured  out,  fills 
some  place ;  into  that  persons  may  be  immersed, 5? 
etc.*  Passing  the  grossness  of  these  allusions,  what,, 
we  earnestly  ask,  does  Mr.  Campbell  mean  by  say- 

*  pp.  168,  179. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  143 

ing,  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  were  copiously  poured  out, 
and  the  apostles  were  plunged  or  immersed  into  those 
gifts  ?  What  does  he  mean  by  the  influence  of  the 
Spirit  filling  a  place,  and  persons  being  plunged 
into  that  ?  Such  language,  we  venture  to  affirm, 
means  nothing.  It  serves  only  to  blind  the  simple  ; 
and  the  necessity  of  resorting  to  it,  shows  under  how 
great  difficulties  the  cause  of  immersion  labors.  Mr. 
Campbell  contends  earnestly,  that  the  word  baptize 
expresses  the  definite  action  of  immersing  ;  and  yet 
when  the  Holy  Spirit  is  said  to  be  poured  oat  upon 
men,  he  insists  that  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  is 
poured,  not  on  men,  but  into  a  place,  and  that  men 
are  plunged  into  that  place  or  influence  !  How  can 
men  bring  themselves  to  perversions  of  the  Scrip- 
tures so  glaring  ?  Is  it  not  strange  that  they  would 
rather  make  the  Scriptures  speak  nonsense,  than 
allow  them  to  teach  what  they  do  not  like  ? 


LETTER  XL 

Dear  Sir  :  Amongst  the  most  plausible  and  least 
forcible  of  your  arguments  for  exclusive  immersion, 
is  that  founded  on  what  you  call  "  convertible 
terms" — an  argument,  as  you  say,  "  for  the  special 
benefit  of  the  more  uneducated."  You  are  right,  we 
think,  in  supposing  that  it  is  better  adapted  to  pro- 


144  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

duce  an  impression  upon  the  ignorant.  Others  might 
easily  detect  its  fallacy. 

The  principle  on  which  you  found  your  argument , 
you  state  thus  :  "  The  definition  of  a  word  and  the 
word  itself,  are  always  convertible  terms.  For 
example,  to  say  law  is  a  rule  of  action,  is  equivalent 
to  saying,  a  rule  of  action  is  a  law."*  You  conclude, 
that  since  the  words  sprinkle  and  pour  cannot  be 
substituted  for  bajjtizo,  in  the  Bible,  this  latter 
word,  of  course,  does  not  signify  to  pour  or 
sprinkle.  Let  us,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  ad- 
mit the  correctness  of  your  rule,  and  then  show  that 
it  proves  nothing  for  your  cause. 

1.  It  might  prove,  what  no  one  denies,  that  the 
word  baptizo  does  not  definitely  express  the  act  of 
pouring  or  sprinkling ;  but  it  would  not  prove  that 
it  does  not  signify  to  cleanse,  to  wash,  to  purify, 
BY  pouring  or  sprinklino.  For  example,  God 
commanded  Moses  to  bring  Aaron  and  his  sons  to 
the  door  of  the  Tabernacle,  and  wash  them  with 
water. f  It  would  not  do  to  substitute  the  word  pour 
for  the  word  wash,  in  this  passage  ;  and  yet,  it  is 
clear,  that  the  washing  was  done  by  jwk  ring.  Cer- 
tainly, it  might  have  been  so  clone.  And  when 
Origen  says,  the  alter  was  baptized  at  the  command 
of  Elijah,  it  will  not  do  to  substitute  the  word  pour 
for  the  word   baptize  ;  and  yet  we  know  that  the 

•p.  178.  f  Exod.,  11:  12. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  145 

altar  was  baptized  by  pouring.  In  this  case,  the 
word  baptize  expresses  the  thing  done,  and  the 
word  pour,  the  mode  of  doing  it.  Precisely  so, 
the  word  baptizo,  as  used  by  our  Saviour,  expresses 
the  administration  of  a  certain  ordinance,  the  mode 
of  administering  which  is  to  be  learned  from  the 
meaning  of  the  ordinance,  and  the  circumstances 
attending  its  administration.  This  is  in  accord- 
ance with  one  of  the  simplest  principles  of  language, 
of  which  it  would  be  easy  to  give  a  thousand  ex- 
amples. One  more  will  suffice.  We  read*  that  the 
eunuch,  after  being  baptized,  "  went  on  his  way 
rejoicing."  The  word  tvent  expresses  the  thing 
done  ;  but  how  did  he  go  ?  The  context  shows,  that 
he  went  in  a  chariot.  Will  any  one  pretend  that 
the  word  went  signifies  riding  in  a  chariot  ?  No  ; 
for  the  eunuch  might  have  gone  on  foot,  or  on 
horseback. 

2.  Certain  words,  in  every  language,  acquire  what 
is  called  a  technical  meaning,  which  is  not  identical 
with  their  popular  sense.  Numberless  examples 
might  be  given  from  philosophy,  law,  medicine,  and 
every  science.  The  Christian  system  also  has  its 
technical  terms.  A  few  examples  will  sufiice.  The 
words  prresbyter  and  elder  signify  properly  an  old 
man  ;  but  in  the  New  Testament,  they  are  also  used 
to  designate  one  who  fills  a  certain  office,  though  he 


*  Acts,  8  :  49. 

13* 


146  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

be  a  young  man.  In  1  Tim.,  5:1,  the  word  is 
used  in  the  former  sense;  in  Titus,  1 :  5,  it  is  used 
in  the  latter.  The  word  deacon  signifies  a  servant, 
one  who  serves  in  any  capacity ;  but  it  is  also  used 
to  designate  one  who  fills  a  particular  office  in  the 
church.  In  John,  2:  5,  it  is  used  in  its  popular 
sense;  in  1  Tim.,  3  :  12,  it  is  used  in  its  technical 
sense.  The  word  ordain  belongs  to  the  same  class. 
It  is  employed  in  its  popular  sense  in  Acts,  16 :  4  ; 
in  its  technical  sense  in  Acts,  14:  23.  The  word 
baptize,  also,  appropriated  to  designate  a  particular 
ordinance,  has  acquire'!  a  technical  sense. 

Now,  this  principle  of  "  convertible  terms,"  does 
not  apply  to  words  in  their  technical  sense.  A 
presbyter  or  elder,  we  have  said,  is  literally  an  old 
man.  Substitute  old  men  for  presbyters  or  elders, 
in  Acts,  14:  23,  1  Tim.,  5;  17,  James,  5:  14, 
and  see  what  sense  you  will  make?  Substitute,  in 
the  same  way,  the  word  servant  for  deacon.  Then 
substitute  the  word  decree,  which  is  the  popular 
meaning,  for  the  word  ordain,  in  Acts,  14  :  23, 
Tit.,1:  5. 

Truly,  it  is  amazing  that  any  man,  haviDg  even 
a  tolerable  knowledge  of  language,  should  attempt 
to  apply  the  principle  of  "  convertible  terms"  to 
words  used  in  a  technical  sense.  But  the  cause  of 
immersion  drives  its  advocates  to  many  most  singu- 
lar positions. 

3.  But,  after  all,  will  the   cause   of   immersion 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  147 

itself  bear  to  be  tested  by  this  principle?  Mr. 
Campbell  affirms  that  "  the  everywhere  current  sig- 
nification or  baptizo,  the  word  chosen  by  Jesus 
Christ,  in  his  commission  to  the  apostles,  is  to  dip, 
plunge,  or  immerse."  Now  substitute  plunge  for 
baptize.  Then  we  shall  read,  that  Nebuchadnezzar 
was  plunged  from  the  dew  of  heaven !  That 
Judith  went  out  at  night,  and  plunged  herself  at 
a  fountain!  That  the  Pharisee  who  invited  our 
Saviour  to  dine,  wondered  that  he  was  not  plunged 
before  eating !  That  the  law  of  Moses  had  divers 
plungingsl  That  Elisha  commanded  the  priests, 
before  he  called  down  fire  on  the  sacrifice,  to  plunge 
the  altar  three  times !  That  the  penitent  back- 
slider was  plunged  a  second  time  with  tears  !  These 
are  strange  expressions,  calculated  to  provoke  a 
smile  ;  but  the  cause  of  plunging  requires  them. 
Mr,  Campbell  admits  that,  in  some  cases,  "  the 
association  may  appear  strange  and  uncouth  in 
style;"  but  he  insists  that  "it  will  always  be 
not  only  practicable  in  fact,  but  good  in  meaning."* 
Yes,  perfectly  practicable  in  fact  to  plunge  Nebu- 
chadnezzar from  dew — no  difficulty  at  all  in  plung- 
ing Elisha's  altar  with  the  sacrifice  lying  on  it,  and 
in  doing  this  by  pouring — perfectly  easy  for  a  man 
to  be  plunged  into  his  tears,  or  into  his  own  blood  ! 
If  immersion  cannot  work  miracles,  it  can  certainly 

*  1. 179. 


148  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

do  many  wonderful  things,  which,  to  men  of  common 
sense,  appear  perfectly  impracticable. 

Mr.  Campbell  even  goes  so  far  as  to  assert,  that 
the  apostles,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  were  plunged 
into  the  Holy  Spirit !  '  <  The  influence  of  the  Spirit 
poured  out,  fills  some  place  :  into  that,  persons  may 
be  immersed."*  Such  language,  as  we  have  before 
remarked,  means  nothing.  It  is  sheer  nonsense  to 
talk  of  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  being  poured 
into  some  place,  and  of  men  being  plunged  into 
that.  The  language,  says  Mr.  C,  is  "  strange  and 
uncouth"  Yes,  but  the  cause  of  immersion  cannot 
be  sustained,  without  putting  into  the  mouths  of  in- 
spired men,  language,  not  only  strange  and  uncouth, 
(which  is  sufficient  proof  that  the  doctrine  is  false,) 
but  absolutely  unmeaning.  They  never  used  a 
strange  and  uncouth  style  ;  much  less,  did  they  use 
words  and  phrases  without  meaning. 

But  what  is  to  be  done  with  the  bajitism  by 
fire?\  "  And  there  appeared  unto  them  cloven 
tongues,  like  as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each  of 
them."  J  Here  is  the  fulfillment  of  the  promise 
recorded  in  Matthew ;  but  there  is  no  plunging. 
The  cause  of  immersion  has  required  the  converting 
of  the  promise  into  a  terrific  threat ;  so  that  Matt. , 
3  :  11,  should  be  interpreted  to  mean — He  shall 
plunge  some  of  you  into  the  Holy  Spirit;  and 

*  p.  179.  |  Matt..  3:11.  f  Acts,  2 :  3. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  149 

others  of  you  he  will  plunge  into  hell  fire  !  Mr. 
Campbell  is  so  determined  to  make  baptizo  always 
mean  to  plunge,  that  he  adopts,  unhesitatingly,  this 
gross  perversion  of  an  important  passage  of  God's 
■word  !  The  plain  truth  is,  that  Mr.  C.'s  principle 
of  "  convertible  terms,"  as  he  applies  it,  is  not  only 
unsound,  but  it  is  fatal  to  his  own  doctrine.  It 
proves,  demonstrably,  that  the  word  baptizo  does 
not  express  the  definite  action  of  immersiDg. 

And  now,  Mr.  Campbell,  allow  me  to  bid  you  a 
friendly  adieu.  The  subject,  I  am  aware,  is  not 
exhausted  ;  but  your  main  positions  have  been  briefly 
examined ;  and  evidence  abundant,  I  think,  has  been 
furnished  to  prove  that  baptism,  by  pouring  and 
sprinkling,  is  both  valid  and  scriptural.  The  fol- 
lowing points,  if  I  mistake  not,  have  been  made  out, 
viz  : 

1.  That  baptism  is  not  an  action ;  and  the  fact, 
that  immersionists  have  been  driven  to  a  view  of 
the  ordinance  so  palpably  unscriptural,  is  presump- 
tive evidence  against  the  exclusive  claims  of  immer- 
sion.       «# 

2.  The  almost  universal  belief  of  the  Christian 
church,  in  every  age,  of  those  whose  vernacular 
tongue  was  the  Greek,  of  those  who  even  practiced 
generally  trine  immersion,  is  decidedly  against 
you.  With  the  exception  of  a  mere  handful,  (and 
those  have  lived  in  modern  times,)  all  have  under- 
stood the  Scriptures  to  teach  that  baptism  is  one 


150  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

thing,  and  the  mode  of  administering  it  another  ; 
and  that  the  latter  is  not  essential  to  the  validity  of 
the  ordinance.  It  is  far  more  probable  that  the 
comparatively  few  exclusive  immersionists  in  modern 
times,  have  been  misled  by  their  unwise  zeal,  than 
that  all  Christendom,  for  eighteen  hundred  years, 
have  failed  to  understand  one  of  the  plainest  com- 
mands in  the  Xew  Testament. 

3.  The  lexicons,  ancient  and  modern,  with  remark- 
able unanimity,  contradict  your  position,  that  bap- 
tizo signifies  simply  and  definitely  to  dip  or  plunge. 
All  assign  to  the  word  other  meanings  in  accord- 
ance with  our  views,  such  as  to  cleanse,  to  wash — 
words  which  you  admit  express  nothing  of  mode. 

4.  Classic  usage,  though  a  very  uncertain  guide  in 
interpreting  Scripture  language,  is  also  against  you. 
Amongst  Greek  writers,  baptizo  means  the  moisten- 
ing of  one's  hand  with  one's  own  blood,  the  wetting 
of  a  blister  plaster  with  breast-milk,  and  the  flowing 
of  water  over  the  ground,  as  well  as  the  sinking  of  a 
ship  or  the  drowning  of  a  man ;  whilst  bapto  has 
even  a  greater  variety  of  meaning. 

5.  Scripture  usage  is  still  more  decidedly  against 
you.  Thus  bapto  expresses  moistening,  wetting 
with  dew,  sprinkling  garments  with  blood,  etc.  And 
baptizo  generally  occurs  in  such  circumstances,  where 
the  ordinance  of  baptism  is  not  mentioned,  as  to  show 
that  the  water  was  applied  to  the  person,  not  the  per- 
son to  the  water.     The  cause  of  immersion  can  be 


MODE  OP  BAPTISM.  151 

sustained  only  by  supposing  the  existence  of  customs 
among  the  Jews,  which  could  not  have  existed,  and 
which  are  mentioned  by  no  writer,  and  by  making 
the  inspired  writers  use  language  "  strange  and  un- 
couth." 

6.  The  translations  are  against  you ;  for  scarcely 
one  of  them,  either  in  ancient  or  modern  times, 
translates  baptizo  by  the  words  meaning  to  im- 
merse. All  are  either  transferred,  as  our  Bible  does, 
or  translated  by  a  generic  term,  expressing  the  idea 
of  cleansing,  confirming ,  etc. 

7.  The  usage  of  the  Christian  fathers  is  against 
you.  Origen,  the  most  learned  of  the  Greeks,  sub- 
stituted rantizo,  to  sprinkle,  for  bapto,  and  used 
the  word  baptizo  to  signify  pouring  water  on  an 
altar.  Others  spoke  of  the  baptism  of  tears  and  of 
blood.  All  administered  baptism  by  pouring  and 
sprinkling,  when  necessary,  and  none  questioned  the 
validity  of  the  ordinance  thus  administered. 

8.  The  places  where  Christian  baptism  was  ad- 
ministered, offer  a  conclusive  argument  against  you. 
In  but  one  single  instance  did  any  one  go  to  any 
stream  of  water  for  the  purpose  of  baptizing  :  and 
in  that  case,  Philip  and  the  eunuch  came  to  the 
water,  as  they  were  traveling.  Multitudes  were  bap- 
tized wherever  they  were  converted,  without  delay, 
in  the  crowded  city,  (three  thousand  in  a  day,)  in 
jails,  in  private  houses,  even  standing  tip. 

9.  The  meaning  of  the  ^ordinance  affords  a  power- 


152  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

fill  argument  against  you.  It  is,  you  admit,  an 
ablution,  a  cleansing;  and  the  Scriptures  con- 
stantly represent  spiritual  cleansing  by  the  sprink- 
ling of  water  and  blood,  or  of  clean  water,  but  never 
by  immersion.  Is  it  not  most  unaccountable,  if  im- 
mersionists  are  in  the  right,  that  sanctification  is 
never  represented  by  immersion  ? 

10.  The  language  of:  the  Scriptures  concerning 
the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  decidedly  unfavorable 
to  immersion.  Men  were  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  and  the  Holy  Spirit  is  represented  as  poured 
upon  them,  not  poured  into  a  place,  into  which  they 
were  plunged,  as  the  defence  of  immersion  compels 
you  absurdly  to  assert.  The  word  pour,  as  applied  to 
the  Spirit,  is  figurative,  and  Was  evidently  borrowed 
from  the  custom  of  pouring  water  in  the  administra- 
tion of  baptism. 

11.  Even  your  favorite  principle  of  "  convertible 
terms  "  is  fatal  to  the  cause  it  is  introduced  to  sup- 
port. It  will  not  do  to  substitute  immerse,  dip, 
plunge,  for  baptize,  whenever  this  word  occurs. 

I  may  safely  close  the  discussion  at  this  point. 
The  evidence  in  favor  of  baptizing  by  pouring  or 
sprinkling  seems  to  me  conclusive.  Most  abundant 
is  the  proof,  that  the  position  that  immersion  is  the 
only  scriptural  and  valid  baptism,  is  unscriptural, 
and  calculated  to  produce  schism  in  the  church  of 
Christ.  Great  and  fearful  is  the  responsibility  of 
those,  who,  on  grounds  so  slender,  and  against  so 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  153 

much  evidence,  exclude  from  their  fellowship  all  who 
have  not  received  baptism  by  immersion.  The  close 
communion,  based  on  this  dogma,  is  not  only  un- 
scriptural,  but  is  contrary  to  the  promptings  of 
the  strongest  feelings  of  multitudes  of  pious  Bap- 
tists. 

But  you  may  ask,  as  others  have  asked,  if  im- 
mersion is  admitted  to  be  valid  baptism,  why  will 
not  all  agree  to  practice  it,  and  thus  terminate  the 
controversy.     I  answer : 

1.  We  admit  the  validity  of  baptism  by  immer- 
sion, only  because  we  hold  the  mode  of  administering 
not  essential  to  the  ordinance.  It  is  not,  in  our  view, 
the  scriptural  mode.  If  we  were  convinced  that  the 
mode  is  essential,  we  would,  many  of  us,  deny  the 
validity  of  immersion.  We  cannot  give  countenance 
to  the  error  which  converts  an  important  and  sig- 
nificant ordinance  into  an  action,  and  confounds 
the  mode  of  administration  with  the  ordinance  itself. 

2.  Those  who  have  been  scripturally  baptized, 
cannot  agree,  contrary  to  Scripture,  to  receive  ano- 
ther baptism  less  scriptural,  to  please  those  who  have 
fallen  into  error.  We  may  not  do  evil,  that  good 
may  come. 

3.  In  every  age,  the  truth  has  been  compromised, 
and  dangerous  error  fostered,  by  attaching  undue 
importance  to  ordinances ;  and  the  entire  history  of 
the  church  shows  nothing  more  extreme,  than  the 
doctrine  of   immersionists.     No  man  knows  better 

14 


154  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

than  yourself,  Mr.  Campbell,  how  the  Baptist  church 
has  been  divided  and  filled  with  strife,  by  contro- 
versies about  baptism.  Your  own  sect  owes  its  very 
existence  to  the  zeal  and  ability  with  which  you  plead 
for  immersion,  as  the  only  valid  baptism,  and  mag- 
nified its  efficacy  in  securing  remission  of  sins.*  You 
began  with  the  defence  of  immersion,  and  you  ended 
by  making  immersion  essential  to  the  remission  of 
sins.  Having  gone  so  far  as  to  make  it  essential  to 
salvation,  you  felt  obliged  to  contend,  that  every 
professed  disciple,  male  and  female,  may  administer 
the  ordinance.  Nay,  in  the  ardor  of:  your  zeal  for 
the  emblem  of  sanctification,  you  denied  the  influence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  work  of  sanctification,  con- 
fining it  simply  to  the  word  of  God.  Like  the  Jews 
of  old,  you  clung  to  the  shadow,  and  rejected  the 
substance  ;  and  into  this  fatal  error  you  were  unhap- 


*  Dr.  Jeter,  an  able  Baptist  writer,  in  his  late  work  on  Camp- 
bellisin,  makes  the  following;  statement  respecting  the  way  in 
which  Mr.  Campbell  gained  so  great  an  influence  in  the  Baptist 
denomination  : 

"  By  his  fearless  and  forcible  defence  of  the  distinctive 
sentiments  of  the  Baptists,  in  his  debates  with  Walker  and 
McCalla,  he  secured  extensively  the  confidence  and  esteem  of 
the  denomination.  They  were  proud  to  acknowledge  him  as 
the  bold  puissant  champion  of  their  cause ;  and  they  made  the 
acknowledgment  with  more  pleasure,  because  he  had  risen  up 
suddenly,  and  in  a  quarter  least  expected.  They  were,  1  here- 
fore,  ready  to  pay  not  only  a  candid,  but  confiding  regard  to 
anything  he  might  publish."     pp.  76,  77. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  155 

pily  successful  in  drawing  multitudes  of  your  fellow- 
men. 

Even  now,  you  and  some  in  the  Baptist  churches, 
who  but  recently  were  your  zealous  opponents,  are 
laboring  to  destroy  the  public  confidence  in  the  best 
translation  of  the  Scriptures  which  was  ever  made, 
that  you  may  secure  a  new  immersionist  translation. 
Thus,  you  have  succeeded,  a  second  time,  in  intro- 
ducing division  and  strife  into  the  Baptist  churches. 
Your  zeal  and  theirs  for  immersion,  leads  to  these 
unhappy  results,  whilst  the  great  doctrines  of  the 
cross  are  thrown  into  the  shade,  or  entirely  rejected. 
We  must  stand  firm  in  opposition  to  this  mischievous 
delusion. 

4.  The  exclusive  claims  of  immersionists  stand 
intimately  associated  with  erroneous  views  of  the 
design  of  baptism.  Whilst  they  admit  that  it  signi- 
fies sanctification,  or  spiritual  cleansing,  they  will 
have  it  represent  the  burial  of  Christ ;  and  this  last 
evidently  is  most  prominent  in  their  view.  Under 
the  New  Dispensation,  there  are  but  two  sacraments. 
One  of  these,  as  all  admit,  represents  the  death  of 
Christ.  Would  it  not  be  strange,  that  the  other 
should  represent  his  burial? — especially,  as  in  the 
Bible  the  mere  fact  of  his  being  laid  in  a  tomb  is 
never  represented  as  being  efficacious  in  securing 
salvation.  It  would  be  even  more  strange,  that  two 
things  so  extremely  unlike,  as  burial  and  cleansing, 
should  be   signified  by  the   same   ordinance.     The 


156  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

truth  is,  as  the  Lord's  supper  represents  the  death 
of  Christ,  through  which  men  are  justified,  so  does 
baptism  represent  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  by 
which  they  are  sanctified.  We  cannot  agree  to  adopt 
a  mode  of  baptism  which  stands  so  intimately  as- 
sociated with  error,  respecting  the  design  of  the 
ordinance. 

5.  Multitudes  of  the  human  family  are  so  situated, 
that  they  cannot,  if  they  would,  be  immersed.  There 
are  regions  where,  during  a  large  part  of  the  year,  the 
cold  is  so  intense,  that  it  is  next  to  impossible  to  ad- 
minister baptism  by  immersion  to  any  considerable 
number.  And  there  are  regions  where  there  is  so  little 
water,  that  a  different  mode  must  be  adopted,  or  the 
ordinance  wholly  neglected.  I  am  here  reminded  of 
one  of  the  earliest  baptisms,  the  mode  of  which  is 
distinctly  stated.  Walker  tells  of  a  Jew  who,  while 
traveling  with  Christians  in  the  time  of  Marcus 
Aurelius  Antoninus,  about  sixty  or  seventy  years 
after  the  apostles,  was  converted,  fell  sick,  and  de- 
sired baptism.  Not  having  water,  "  they  sprinkled 
him  thrice  with  sand,  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost."  He  recovered,  and  his  case 
was  reported  to  the  bishop,  who  decided  that  the  man 
was  baptized,  (si  modo  denuo  aqua  perf  under etur,) 
if  only  water  were  poured  on  him  again.*  This  fact 
shows,  that  at  that  early  period,  the  exclusive  claims 

*  Pond  on  Baptism,  p.  45. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  157 

of  immersion  were  unknown.  There  are  many, 
moreover,  particularly  females,  whose  infirm  health 
renders  it  highly  dangerous  for  them  to  be  immersed. 
We  do  not  believe  that  our  Saviour  ever  appointed 
an  ordinance  to  be  received  by  all  persons,  in  all 
places  and  conditions,  the  administration  of  which 
is  attended  with  so  many  difficulties  ;  and  we  cannot 
depart  from  what  we  regard  as  the  scriptural  mode, 
to  favor  a  mode  so  unadapted  to  the  necessities  of  the 
people. 

6.  Even  if  all  would  agree  to  be  immersed,  no 
union  could  be  effected,  unless  we  would  renounce 
that  covenant  which  embraces  believers  and  their 
children,  and  exclude  these  last  from  the  privileges 
which  the  children  of  believers  have  enjoyed  since 
there  was  a  church  on  earth.  We  may  not  make  so 
great  a  sacrifice  of  covenant  blessings. 

In  another  and  more  permanent  form,  I  may  con- 
tinue this  discussion,  embracing  the  subjects  of  bap- 
tism. Your  book,  however,  so  far  as  I  can  learn, 
excites  but  little  attention,  and  is  accomplishing  but 
little  for  the  cause  of  immersion.  The  Lexington 
Debate,  Mr.  Campbell,  fixed  public  sentiment,  with 
regard  to  your  defence  of  your  peculiar  views  of 
baptism,  and  of  your  entire  reformation.  No  book 
which  you  can  write  now,  is  likely  to  change  that 
public  sentiment.  You  failed  in  that  contest,  in 
which  you  laid  out  your  whole  strength.  You  failed, 
after  having  for  years  challenged  discussion.  Your 
14* 


158  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

failure  was  complete  ;  it  was  manifest  to  all.     What 
you  then  lost,  you  cannot  recover. 

But,  Mr.  Campbell,  you  and  I  are  growing  older — 
approaching  rapidly  the  termination  of  our  public 
labors.  It  is  not  the  true  interest  of  either  of  us  to 
mislead  others  on  subjects  of  so  great  moment.  I 
would  rejoice  to  see  you  spend  the  closing  years  of 
your  life  in  repairing  the  injury  which,  for  so  many 
years,  your  talents  and  learning  have  enabled  you  to 
do — in  proclaiming  that  truth  which  you  have  so 
striven  to  subvert. 

With  kind  wishes,  etc., 

N.  L.  RICE. 


INFANT    BAPTISM 


CHAPTER  I 


The  nature  and  design  of  baptism  we  have  briefly 
considered.  We  now  proceed  to  the  question — To 
whom  is  baptism  to  be  administered?  That  it  is 
to  be  administered  to  believers,  all,  except  Quakers, 
admit.  The  great  majority  of  professirg  Christians 
maintain,  that  it  is  to  be  administered  also  to  the 
infant  children  of  believers.  This  is  the  doctrine 
of  Presbyterians. 

The  subject  is  one  of  great  practical  importance, 
1st.  As  it  respects  the  duty  of  parents  to  God  and 
to  their  children.  For  if  God  has  made  it  the  duty 
and  the  privilege  of  believing  parents  to  bring  their 
children  into  a  covenant  relation  to  him,  the  conse- 
quences of  disregarding  his  will,  and  of  rejecting 
such  a  privilege,  cannot  be  happy.  And  if  ever  we 
are  specially  bound  to  examine  thoroughly,  candidly, 
and  prayerfully,  it  is  when  we  are  called  to  act  for 
our  children,  who  cannot  speak  for  themselves. 

2d.  The  subject  is  of  incalculable  importance,  as 


160  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

it  stands  related  to  the  validity  of  baptism,  and  the 
existence  of  the  visible  church.  The  Baptists  of  all 
classes  deny  the  validity  of  baptism,  as  administered 
by  Pedo-baptists,  on  two  grounds,  viz  :  because  they 
baptize  infants,  and  because  they  baptize  by  pour- 
ing or  sprinkling.  Denying  the  validity  of  such 
baptism,  they  refuse  to  commune,  at  the  Lord's 
table,  with  Pedo-baptists,  and  to  recognize  their 
churches  or  their  ministers.  We  have  before  us  a 
pamphlet  recently  published  by  Elder  J.  M.  Pendle- 
ton, of  Bowling  Green,  Kentucky,  on  the  question. 
u  Ought  Baptists  to  recognize  Pedo-baptist  preachers 
as  Gospel  Ministers  ? "  This  question  he  answers 
negatively.  On  pages  7  and  8,  he  writes  as  fol- 
lows : 

"  The  unwarranted  substitution  of  sprinkling  for 
baptism,  of  itself  invalidates  the  claim  of  Pedo- 
baptist  societies  to  be  considered  churches  of  Christ. 
But  there  is  another  fact  that  renders  that  claim 
utterly  worthless.  It  is  the  element  of  infant  mem- 
bership in  these  societies.  Why  is  the  distinctive 
epithet  Pedo-baptists  applied  to  them?  Because  they 
practice  what  is  called  infant  baptism.  They  seem, 
in  the  judgment  of  Baptists,  at  least,  to  make  a  spe- 
cific effort  to  subvert  the  foundation  principles  of  the 
New  Testament  church  organization.  They  intro- 
duce unconscious  infants  into  their  churches,  falsely 
so  called ;  thus  practically  superseding  the  necessity 
of  personal  repentance,  faith,  and  regeneration,  in 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  161 

order  to  membership.  If  it  were  the  object  of  Pedo- 
baptists  to  thwart  the  purpose  and  the  plans  of  Jesus 
Christ,  in  reference  to  the  organic  structure  of  his 
churches,  I  cannot  conceive  how  they  could  do  so 
more  effectually  than  by  making  infant  membership 
the  predominant  element  of  their  organizations.  It 
is  the  predominant  element.  This  arises  from  the 
well-known  fact  which  secures  an  increase  of  popu- 
lation, namely,  that  there  are  more  children  than 
parents.  How,  then,  can  it  come  within  the  limits 
of  the  widest  possibility  for  a  Pedo-baptist  society 
to  be  a  church  of  Christ,  when  the  infant  enters 
more  largely  than  the  adult  element  into  its  com- 
position ? " 

Mr.  Pendleton,  who,  a  few  years  since,  was  one 
of  the  most  liberal  of  the  Baptist  preachers,  con- 
tends earnestly,  (and  we  cannot  deny  his  position,) 
that  this  exclusiveness,  equalled  only  by  that  of 
Rome,  is  the  ligitimate  carrying  out  of  Baptist  prin- 
ciples. If,  then,  the  Baptists  are  right,  there  are 
no  true  churches  on  earth  but  theirs ;  and  Pedo- 
baptist  ministers  are  intruders  into  the  sacred  office, 
and  profaners  of  the  ordinances  of  God's  house.  By 
the  way,  it  may  be  noted,  as  one  of  "  the  signs  of 
the  times,"  that  just  now,  when  Papists  are  every- 
where taking  the  extreme  positions  of  their  intolerant 
creed,  the  Baptists,  on  the  other  hand,  are  keep- 
ing up  with  them  in  the  extreme  exclusiveness  of 
theirs. 


162  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

Against  the  Baptist  views,  and  in  favor  of  Infant 
Baptism,  we  will,  first,  offer  two  general  arguments; 
and  then  we  will  meet  the  question  with  direct  scrip- 
tural proofs.  The  true  interests  of  us  all  require 
the  utmost  sincerity  and  impartiality  in  the  examina- 
tion of  this  question.  May  God,  in  his  mercy,  guide 
us  to  right  conclusions. 

1.  A  presumptive  argument  of  great  weight  in 
favor  of  infant  baptism,  is  the  fact,  that  the  great 
body  of  the  wise  and  good,  in  every  age,  have 
understood  the  Scriptures  to  teach  the  doctrines. 
We  pass,  for  the  present,  the  testimony  of  the  early 
Christian  writers,  and  of  the  Walclenses  who  lived 
before  the  Reformation,  and  confine  the  argument  to 
Protestants.  It  is  not  denied,  that  Luther,  Calvin, 
Knox,  and  all  the  distinguished  reformers  of  the  six- 
teenth century,  understand  the  Bible  as  teaching  this 
doctrine.  And  in  our  own  day,  after  a  discussion  of 
three  centuries,  the  whole  body  of  Protestant  Chris- 
tendom, with  the  exception  of.  a  comparative  handful 
still  understood  it  in  the  same  way.  We  earnestly 
ask  the  candid  reader,  whether  it  is  credible  that 
so  large  a  portion  of  those  whose  learning  and  piety 
are  unquestionable,  have  so  fatally  erred  in  a  matter 
essential,  not  only  to  the  purity,  but  to  the  very 
existence  of  the  church  of  Christ  ?  Is  not  the  Bible 
a  plain  book,  easily  understood  on  all  points  essential 
to  salvation,  or  essential  to  the  existence  of  the 
visible  church?     And  do  not  Baptists  and  Camp- 


4 

INFANT  BAPTISM.  163 

bellites  represent  the  baptism  of  infants  as  obviously 
and  ridiculously  unscriptural  and  absurd?  If,  then, 
they  are  right,  the  blindness  and  stupidity  of  Pedo- 
baptists,  amongst  whom  confessedly  have  been,  and 
are,  multitudes  of  the  wisest  and  best  men,  are  per- 
fectly amazing.  How  do  you  account  for  it,  that 
those  who,  on  all  other  important  doctrines  and  duties 
of  Christianity,  have  shown  themselves  as  enlight- 
ened, to  say  the  least,  as  the  Baptists,  have  been  so 
perfectly  stupid  or  perverse  on  this  particular  sub- 
ject ?  Have  they  insisted  on  the  authority  of  tra- 
dition ?  On  the  contrary,  they  have  wholly  rejected 
it.  Have  they  refused  or  neglected  to  investigate  the 
subject  ?  On  the  contrary,  they  have  examined  it 
carefully,  learnedly,  thoroughly,  over  and  over  again ; 
and  still  they  are  under  the  clear  conviction,  that 
the  Bible  requires  the  baptism  of  the  infant  children 
of  believers.  Now  one  of  two  things  is  true,  viz  : 
either  the  Baptists  are  wrong,  or  the  overwhelming 
majority  of  the  wise  and  good  have  been,  and  are, 
laboring  under  a  stupidity  or  a  perverseness  on  this 
one  subject,  which  is  perfectly  unaccountable.  The 
teaching  of  the  Bible  on  this  question,  essential  to 
the  very  existence  of  the  church,  we  are  assured,  is 
perfectly  plain  in  favor  of  Baptist  views  ;  and  yet 
the  stupid  or  perverse  Pedo-baptists  cannot  see  it ! 
But  wTe  are  equally  puzzled  to  understand  how  our 
Baptist  brethren  came  to  gain  superior  illumination 
on  this  particular  subject.     It  will  not  be  pretended, 


164  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

that  their  learning  is,  or  lias  been,  superior  to  that 
of  Pedo-baptists.  On  the  contrary,  it  must  be  ad- 
mitted, that  in  this  respect  the  advantage  has  been 
decidedly  with  the  Pedo-baptists.  Some  of  us  remem- 
ber, when  it  was  common  to  hear  Baptist  preachers 
declaim  fluently  against  an  educated  ministry;  and 
even  now,  not  a  few  of  them  have  no  pretensions  to 
learning.  It  will  not  be  affirmed  that  the  Baptists 
have  possessed  a  spirituality  so  superior  to  that  of 
the  Pedo-baptists,  as  to  account  for  their  superior 
illumination  on  this  subject.  We  desire  not  to  de- 
tract an  iota  from  what  is  due  them  on  this  score  ; 
but  we  hazard  nothing  in  affirming  that  the  stand- 
ard of  piety  has  been  and  is  quite  as  high  in  the 
Pedo-baptist,  as  in  the  Baptist  churches.  Look  at  the 
Christian  walk  of  their  respective  members  ;  inquire 
into  the  history  of  revivals ;  read  the  devotional 
works  published  ;  go  and  hear  their  respective  minis- 
ters preach  ;  and  see  if  it  be  not  as  we  state.  It  is, 
moreover,  a  very  singular  fact,  that  the  peculiar 
illumination  of  our  Baptist  friends  has  been  con- 
fined to  this  one  subject !  On  no  other  subject,  is 
it  pretended  that  they  have  excelled  all  others  in 
understanding  the  teaching  of  the  Bible.  As  to 
ministerial  qualifications,  they  have  confessedly 
been  not  particularly  enlightened.  They  have  even 
learned  wisdom  from  those  whom  they  practically 
excommunicate.  Respecting  the  duty  of  sending  the 
Gospel  to  all  the  world,  not  a  few  of  them  have  been, 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  165 

and  are  now  in  the  dark.  We  find  amongst  them  a 
due  proportion  who  are  anti-mission — opposed  to 
missionary  operations,  Bible  societies,  and  the  be- 
nevolent operations  of  the  day,  and  to  temperance. 
They  have  even  been  divided  on  the  all-important 
question  respecting  baptismal  regeneration  ;  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  regeneration  and  sanc- 
tification  ;  the  nature  of  faith,  and  the  like.  Yet 
the  persons  divided  on  these  vital  subjects,  are  per- 
fectly united  in  claiming  extraordinary  enlightenment 
on  the  mode  and  subjects  of  baptism !  We  make 
these  remarks  in  no  unkind  spirit.  We  mean  dis- 
tinctly to  say,  that  it  is  incredible,  on  the  one  hand, 
that  the  majority  of  the  wise  and  good  should  have 
so  strangely  and  so  long  misunderstood  the  Bible  on 
subjects  so  essential  to  the  existence  of  the  church, 
when  on  all  other  subjects  of  anything  like  equal 
importance,  they  have  rightly  understood  it.  And 
it  is  incredible,  on  the  other,  that  a  small  handful  of 
people,  inferior  in  learning,  not  superior  in  piety, 
in  error  or  divided  on  other  doctrines  of  far  greater 
importance,  should  have  been  peculiarly  enlightened 
on  the  two  points — the  mode  and  subjects  of  bap- 
tism. It  is  far  more  probable  that  our  Baptist 
brethren,  having  once  adopted  these  peculiar  views, 
and  given  them  great  prominence,  have  still  been 
misled  by  prejudice.  When,  therefore,  Baptists, 
Campbellites,  Dunkards,  etc.,  tell  us  that  not  only 
we,  but  forty-nine  fiftieths  of  the  readers  of  the 
15 


166  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

Bible,  embracing  the  great  body  of  the  wise  and 
good,  are  unbaptized,  have  wholly  misunderstood  the 
teachings  of:  the  Bible,  in  regard  to  what  baptism  is, 
and,  whilst  supposing  ourselves  called  of  God  to  the 
Gospel  ministry,  are  intruders  into  the  sacred  office ; 
in  a  word,  that  our  churches  are  not  churches ;  we 
smile  at  their  presumption,  their  self-confidence,  and 
their  absurdities.  This  presumptive  evidence  appears 
to  us  very  nearly  conclusive. 

2.  God  has  owned  and  greatly  prospered  the 
Pedo-baptist  churches.  If,  as  Baptists  assert, 
they  are  not  churches  of  Christ,  and  their  ministers 
are  not  even  members  of  his  church,  would  he  put 
his  seal  on  their  ministry?  Would  he  not  rebuke 
their  presumption  by  withholding  his  Spirit  from 
their  profane  ministrations  ?  When  a  portion  of  the 
Congregationalists  of  New  England  denied  the  Di- 
vinity of  Christ,  they  were  shorn  of  their  power. 
Revivals  no  longer  blessed  their  ministry ;  and  they 
have  had  as  much  as  they  could  do  to  exist,  without 
being  able  to  propagate  their  principles.  The  New 
Lights  of  the  West  rose  in  the  midst  of  religious  ex- 
citement;  but,  rejecting  fundamental  doctrines  of 
the  cross,  they  soon  lost  their  strength,  and  were 
absorbed  by  Campbellism.  But  do  not  our  Baptist 
friends  admit,  that  glorious  revivals  have  attended 
the  ministry  of  those  who,  according  them,  are  not 
ministers  ?  Has  not  their  ministry  been  as  fruitful 
of  good,  to  say  the  least,  as  their  own?     Are  not 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  167 

their  churches  as  free  from  scandal,  as  exemplary, 
as  active  in  every  good  work?  Has  not  the  Saviour 
gone  with  their  ministers  to  pagan  lands,  and  greatly 
blessed  their  labors  to  the  conversion  and  salvation 
of  the  heathen  ?  Has  he  not  fulfilled  to  Peclo-bap- 
tist  ministers  the  promise  he  made  to  the  apostles — 
"  Lo,  I  am  with  you?  "  Now,  it  may  seem  a  small 
matter  to  Mr,  Pendleton  and  others,  to  disown  those 
whom  the  Lord  owns.  Certainly,  it  is  to  us,  when 
we  know  that  our  Saviour  owns  us  as  his  ministers, 
a  very  small  matter,  that  brethren,  wise  in  their  own 
conceit,  refuse  to  admit  our  official  claims.  But  we 
appeal  to  the  candid  reader,  and  ask:  Is  it  credible, 
that  for  generations  together  God  would  abundantly 
bless  the  labors  of  those  whose  success  must  tend  to 
prevent  the  very  existence  of  his  church,  and  who  ha- 
bitually profane  the  most  sacred  ordinances  ?  Would 
he  put  no  difference  between  such  men  and  their 
organizations,  and  his  true  ministers  and  churches? 
On  the  other  hand,  do  not  the  divisions  and 
troubles  of  the  Baptists,  growing  out  of  their  ex- 
clusive views,  give  reason  to  doubt  whether  they 
are  scriptural  ?  In  the  abundance  of  their  labors  in 
favor  of  immersion  and  against  infant  baptism, 
many  of  them  have  fallen  into  antinomianism. 
Not  a  few  have  fought  against  the  very  commission 
which  authorizes  us  to  administer  baptism — opposing 
the  carrying  the  Gospel  to  all  nations.  Sabbath- 
breaking  and  intemperance  have  given  scandal.     A 


168  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

learned  advocate  of  those  exclusive  views  mounted 
them  as  a  hobby,  and  divided  the  churches,  sweeping 
hundreds  of  them  into  fundamental  error.  And  now, 
divisions  and  troubles  of  a  distressing  character  have 
arisen  in  connection  with  what  is  called  Bible-revi- 
sion, which  is  nothing  more  or  less  than  putting  the 
Bible  on  the  rack,  to  make  it  teach  Baptist  doc- 
trines. Do  such  facts  show  that  the  blessing  of  God 
rests  upon  those  doctrines  ? 

These  are  presumptive  arguments  ;  but,  as  we 
sincerely  believe,  they  possess  very  great  weight.  In 
our  next  chapter,  we  propose  to  inquire  directly  into 
the  teachings  of  the  Bible. 


CHAPTER  II. 

I  have  offered  a  presumptive  argument,  which, 
as  I  think,  is  of  great  weight  in  favor  of  infant 
baptism.  I  now  proceed  to  the  direct  scriptural 
argument. 

Immediately  after  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  he 
sent  forth  his  apostles  to  preach  the  Gospel,  under 
the  following  commission:  "Go  ye,  therefore,  and 
teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost : 
teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have 
commanded  you ;  and,  lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even 


IXFAXT  BAPTISM.  169 

unto  the  end  of  the  world.  Amen."  The  anti- 
Pedo-baptists  agree  with  us,  that  the  first  word  in 
this  commission,  translated  teach,  signifies  to  dis- 
ciple, or  to  make  disciples.  The  command,  there- 
fore, is  to  go  and  make  disciples  of  all  nations, 
baptizing  and  teaching  them. 

This  commission,  let  it  be  observed,  says  nothing 
about  the  organization  of  a  new  church.  It  is  like- 
wise an  important  fact,  that  it  mentions  neither  adults 
nor  infants.  It  is  a  commission  to  make  discisples  of 
all  nations.  This  was  to  be  done,  so  far  as  human 
instrumentality  was  concerned,  by  baptizing  and 
teaching  ;  but  whether  teaching  must,  in  all  cases, 
precede  baptizing,  the  commission  does  not  decide. 
This  question  must  be  settled  by  reference  to  other 
parts  of  the  Scriptures.  The  precise  purport  of  the 
commission  will  be  more  particularly  examined  here- 
after. 

On  one  point  anti-pedo-baptists  agree  with  us, 
viz  :  that  baptism  is  to  be  administered  to  all  who 
have  the  right  to  membership  in  the  visible  church. 
The  only  important  point  of  controversy  between  us, 
therefore,  relates  to  the  law  of  membership.  They 
hold,  that  the  church  is  to  be  composed  exclusively  of 
professed  believers.  We  maintain,  that  the  church  is 
intended  to  be  a  school,  in  which,  not  only  believers, 
but  their  children,  shall  be  trained  for  the  service  of 
God,  and  for  heaven.  How  shall  this  controversy 
be  settled  ?  Our  opponents  insist  that  as  baptism  is 
15* 


170  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

a  New  Testament  ordinance,  "  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment we  must  look  for  a  precept,  or  a  precedent  for 
infant  baptism."  But  this  is  by  no  means  clear.  It 
is  true,  that  baptism  is  an  ordinance  of  the  New 
Dispensation ;  but  is  it  designed  for  the  benefit  of  a 
new  church,  or  of  a  church  previously  in  existence  ? 
We  ascertain,  in  reading  the  Bible,  that  there  had 
long  been  in  the  world  a  people,  separated  from  all 
others,  acknowledged  by  God  as  his  people — a 
church  of  which  he  calls  himself  the  Lord,  the  Hus- 
band, etc.  It  is  very  clear,  too,  that  this  church 
sustains  important  relations  to  the  church  of  the  New 
Dispensation.  It  is  evident  that  Abraham  is  the 
father  of  the  church  before,  and  of  the  church  after 
the  crucifixion  of  Christ. 

Now  the  important  question  is,  what  relation  does 
the  Christian  church  sustain  to  the  previously  existing 
church  ?  IE  the  Christian  church  is  a  ?ieiv  organiza- 
tion, essentially  different  from  the  church  of  the  Old 
Dispensation,  then  we  must  look  for  the  law  of  mem- 
bership in  the  New  Testament.  But  if  it  is  the  same 
church  with  new  ordinances  and  forms,  suited  to  new 
circumstances,  then  two  questions  arise  respecting 
the  law  of  membership,  viz  :  1st.  What  was  the  law  of 
membership  under  the  preceding  Dispensation  ? 

2d.  Were  any  changes  made  in  this  law  at  the 
introduction  of  the  New  Dispensation?  and,  if  so, 
what  were  those  changes  ? 

The  first  and  most  important  question  before  us, 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  171 

then,  is  as  to  the  sameness  or  identity  of  the 
church  under  the  two  Dispensations.  In  order  to 
determine  this  point,  it  is  necessary  to  give  a  defini- 
tion or  description  of'  the  church ;  and  then  we  must 
determine  in  what  the  identity  of  the  church,  at  dif- 
ferent periods,  consists. 

In  the  Lexington  Debate,  I  gave  the  following 
definition  or  description  of  the  church,  which,  as 
Mr.  Campbell  did  not  object  to  it,  may  be  regarded 
as  confessedly  correct :  The  church  is  a  body  of 
people  separated  from  the  ivorld  for  the  service 
of  God,  with  ordinances  of  divine  appointment, 
and  a  door  of  entrance,  or  a  rite  by  ivhich  mem- 
bership shall  be  recognized.  The  word  church  is 
frequently  used  in  the  New  Testament  to  signify 
such  a  body  worshipping  in  a  particular  place.  Thus, 
we  read  of  the  church  at  Corinth,  the  church  at 
Ephesus,  etc.  But  it  is  also  used  in  a  larger  sense, 
embracing  all  throughout  the  world,  who  profess  the 
true  religion.  In  this  larger  sense,  I  employ  the 
word  in  this  discussion. 

The  question  respecting  the  identity  of  the  church, 
under  the  Old  and  New  Dispensations,  is  of  essential 
importance  in  determining  the  right  of  the  children 
of  believers  to  membership.  In  what,  then,  does  it 
consist  ?     I  answer  : 

1st.  It  does  not  consist  in  its  having  the  same 
persons  as  its  members  ;  for  then  it  could  not  con- 
tinue its  identity  through  any  two  generations.  This 
will  not  be  disputed. 


172  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

2d.  The  identity  of  the  church  does  not  consist 
in  its  having  the  same  positive  institutions  and 
ordinances.  These  are  not  the  church  itself,  but 
are  appointed  for  the  benefit  of  the  church ;  and  a 
change  in  the  circumstances  of  the  church  may  re- 
quire a  change  in  such  institutions  and  observances. 
We  may  illustrate  the  principle  by  reference  to  the 
identity  of  a  state  or  civil  government.  The  State 
of  Kentucky,  for  example,  is  the  same  political  body 
known  by  this  name  fifty  years  ago.  And  yet  there 
have  been  constant  chancres  in  its  laws.     New  laws 

o 

have  been  enacted,  and  old  laws  repealed  almost 
every  year.  This  is  not  all.  Some  important  changes 
have  been  made  in  its  Constitution.  In  what  respect, 
then,  is  it  the  same  political  body  ?  I  answer,  it  is 
the  same,  because  it  has  continued  to  hold  the  same 
political  creed — the  same  fundamental  principles  of 
civil  government.  If  it  had  become  an  aristocracy, 
an  oligarchy,  or  a  kingdom,  its  identity  would  have 
been  destroyed,  and  it  could  no  longer  claim  a  place 
as  one  of  these  United  States. 

The  principle  applies,  in  all  its  force,  to  the 
church.  It  is  a  body  organized  for  the  preservation, 
promotion,  and  propagation  of  the  true  religion. 
It  is  "  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth."  A.  ma- 
terial change  in  its  circumstances  may  require  a  cor- 
responding change  in  its  positive  institutions  and 
ordinances  ;  but  its  identity  remains,  so  long  as  it 
continues  to  hold  the  same  religion.    We  hold,  that 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  173 

the  Christian  church  of  the  present  age  is  identical 
with  the  apostolic  church,  because  its  faith,  its  reli- 
gion, is  essentially  the  same.  We  deny  that  the 
church  of  Rome  possesses  this  identity,  because  its 
faith,  whatever  may  be  said  the  succession  of  its 
ministry,  has  undergone  changes  of  a  fundamental 
character. 

Now,  let  us  inquire  in  what  respects  there  are  dif- 
ferences between  the  church  under  the  Old  Dispen- 
sation and  the  church  under  the  New,  and  in  what 
respects  they  are  the  same.  There  are  two  points  of 
difference  which  strike  us  at  a  glance. 

1st.  The  church  of  the  Old  Dispensation  had  a 
civil  code,  which  does  not  belong  to  the  church  of 
the  New.  The  Jews  were  constituted  a  nation,  as 
well  as  a  church.  It  is  perfectly  manifest,  how- 
ever, that  the  civil  code,  which  was  enacted  at 
Sinai,  constituted  no  part  of  the  church,  and  was 
not  essential  to  it.  But  inasmuch  as  anti-pedo-bap- 
tists  constantly  confound  the  Jewish  state  with  the 
church,  it  is  important  to  point  out  the  essential 
differences  between  them. 

In  the  first  place,  the  Abrahamic  church  existed 
some  four  hundred  years,  before  it  had  any  civil 
code  divinely  appointed.  During  the  stay  of  the 
Jews  in  Egypt,  they  were,  of  course,  subject  to  the 
civil  law  of  that  country.  But  when  Moses  was 
to  conduct  them  to  the  land  of  Canaan,  their  circum- 
stances were  essentially  changed.     In  that  land,  they 


174  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

were  not  to  be  subject  to  the  civil  law  of  any  govern- 
ment existing  there.  It  was  designed  that  they  be 
kept  distinct  from  all  other  nations,  until  the  Messiah 
should  come.  But  since  they  were  to  possess  prop- 
erty, and  since  they  must  be  protected  against  inva- 
sion from  surrounding  nations,  it  became  absolutely 
necessary  that  they  should  have  a  civil  government. 
God,  therefore,  gave  them  a  code  of  laws  to  be  ex- 
ecuted by  proper  officers.  But  when  Christ  came, 
and  the  church  was  no  longer  to  be  kept  distinct  from 
other  people;  this  civil  code,  of  course,  passed  away. 
Indeed,  before  his  advent,  the  sceptre  had  departed 
from  Juclah :  and  the  Jews  were  placed  under 
Roman  law.  Still,  however,  the  Jewish  church,  as 
all  admit,  remained  the  same.  Since,  then,  the 
Abrahamic  or  Jewish  church  existed  before  it  had  a 
civil  code,  and  after  that  code  had  been  suspended 
by  Roman  law,  it  will  not  be  pretended  that  the  civil 
code  was  essential  to  the  identity  of  the  church. 
Secondly.  This  truth  is  the  more  obvious,  when  we 
remark,  that  the  terms  of  citizenship  and  the  terms 
of  membership  in  the  church  were  quite  different. 
Strangers  might  and  did  dwell  in  the  land  amongst 
the  Jews,  and  were  protected  by  the  laws  ;  and  yet, 
unless  they  professed  faith,  they  were  not  members 
of  the  church,  and  could  not  partake  of  its  ordi- 
nances. "  And  when  a  stranger  shall  sojourn  with 
thee,  and  will  keep  the  passover  to  the  Lord,  let  his 
males  be  circumcised,  and  then  let  him  come  near 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  175 

and  keep  it  ;  and  he  shall  be  as  one  that  is  born  in 
the  land."  *  Besides,  proselytes  from  amongst  the 
Gentiles  might  be  members  of  the  church,  entitled 
to  all  its  privileges,  whilst  not  subject  to  the  civil 
code  of  the  Jews,  and  possessing  none  of  the  rights 
of  citizenship  ;  and  Jews  might  become  the  subjects 
of  other  civil  governments,  and  still  retain  all  their 
rights  as  members  of  the  church.  The  Ethiopian 
eunuch  baptized  by  Philip,  was,  doubtless,  such  a 
proselyte  as  I  have  mentioned,  and  so  was  Cornelius. 
And  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  there  were  great  num- 
bers of  Jews  who  resided  in  other  countries,  without 
losing  their  membership  in  the  church.  ' '  And  there 
were  dwelling  at  Jerusalem,  Jews,  devout  men,  out  of 
every  nation  under  heaven."  f 

The  Jewish  church,  then,  was  a  thing  quite  differ- 
ent from  the  Jewish  state ;  and  the  latter  was  not  at 
all  essential  to  the  former.  If  the  Presbyterians  of 
these  United  States  should  emigrate  in  a  body,  and 
settle  in  an  uninhabited  country,  they  would  find  it 
absolutely  necessary  to  organize  a  civil  government. 
They  could  not  exist  without  such  a  government. 
And  then,  if,  in  the  course  of  years,  they  should 
become  dispersed  amongst  surrounding  nations,  and 
become  subject  to  their  laws,  their  civil  government 
would  necessarily  pass  away.  But  who  would  be 
foolish  enough  to  insist,  that  the  Presbyterian  church 

*Exod.,  12:  48.  f  Acts,  2  :  5. 


176  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

was  only  a  nation,  or  that  its  civil  code,  adopted  to 
meet  a  particular  exigency,  was  essential  to  the  ex- 
istence of  the  church  ? 

2d.  Another  point  of  difference  between  the  church 
of  the  Old  Dispensation  and  that  of  the  New,  relates 
to  ordinances.  The  ceremonial  law,  which  was  "a 
shadow  of  good  things  to  come,''  of  course,  passed 
away  at  the  crucifixion  of  Christ.  This  law,  with 
all  its  observances,  was  appointed  for  the  church, 
but  was  not  the  church,  nor  essential  to  it.  Before 
the  call  of  Abraham,  there  were  no  ordinances  of 
divine  appointment,  so  far  as  we  know,  except 
bloody  sacrifices.  These  were  offered  by  the  father 
of  the  family,  acting  as  priest,  and  leading  the 
family  devotions.  When  the  covenant  was  made 
with  Abraham,  circumcision  was  appointed  to  be  the 
seal  of  that  covenant.  We  do  not  learn  that  any 
other  ordinances  were  appointed,  until  Moses  led  the 
Israelites  from  Egypt  to  Mount  Sinai.  There  a  large 
addition  was  made  to  the  previously  existing  cere- 
monies ;  and  a  particular  order  of  men  were  set 
apart  to  minister  at  the  altar,  and  to  give  religious 
instruction.  But  no  one  pretends  that  these  changes 
in  the  ordinances  affected  the  identity  of  the  church 
No  one  denies  that  the  Abrahamic  church  which 
Moses  led  to  Sinai,  was  the  same  church  which  he 
led  from  Sinai  to  Canaan.  And  yet,  during  their 
stay  at  Sinai,  great  changes  were  made  in  their  laws 
and  ordinances.     So  when  Christ  came  and  made  a 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  177 

real,  efficacious  atonement,  there  was  no  more  need 
for  types  and  shadows.  And  then  the  church  was  to 
lengthen  her  cords  and  strengthen  her  stakes,  for  the 
reception  of  the  Gentiles.  Her  ministers  were  to  go 
forth  amongst  all  nations,  and  her  members  were  to 
be  scattered  over  the  face  of  the  earth.  These  al- 
tered circumstances  required  a  corresponding  change 
in  ordinances.  Consequently,  instead  of  the  Pass- 
over and  bloody  sacrifices,  the  Lord's  supper  was 
instituted;  and  instead  of  circumcision  and  "divers 
washings,"  baptism  was  appointed.  But  as  the  addi- 
tion to  the  ordinances  made  at  Sinai  did  not  destroy 
the  identity  of  the  church,  so  neither  did  the  change 
of  ordinances  at  the  commencement  of  the  Xew 
Dispensation.  One  might  as  well  deny  the  identity 
of  a  man,  because  he  wears  a  new  coat,  or  dwells  in 
a  new  house,  as  to  assert  that  a  change  in  ordinances, 
made  for  the  benefit  of  the  Church,  destroys  its 
identity. 

If,  then,  the  Abrahamic  church  is  not  identical 
with  the  Christian  church,  the  proof  that  it  is  not, 
is  not  to  be  found  in  the  passing  away  of  the  Jewish 
civil  code,  or  of  the  ceremonial  law. 

Let  us  now  consider  in  what  respects  the  Christian 
church  is  identical  with  the  Abrahamic  church.  And 
I  remark  generally  that  its  faith,  or  its  religion,  is 
the  same.  Strangely  enough,  this  point  is  contro- 
verted. In  the  Lexington  Debate,  Mr.  Campbell 
said  :  "  Luke  never  confounds  the  Jewish  and  Chris- 
16 


178  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

tian  religions.  He  always  speaks  of  Jews  and  Chris- 
tians, or  disciples,  as  not  only  a  distinct  people,  but 
as  having  a  different  religion.  He  reports  the  speeches 
of  Paul,  when  he  tells  of  his  'conversation  in  the  Jews9 
religion  ;'  how  Paul  '  profited  in  the  Jews'  religion  ;' 
how,  i  after  the  strictest  sect  of  our  (Jews)  reli- 
gion, he  lived  a  Pharisee.5  There  is  sometimes  a 
volume  of:  sense  in  a  single  sentence,  as  there  are 
some  whole  volumes  without  one  good  idea.  The 
Jews'  Religion  commended  by  Luke — our  reli- 
gion, too.  Yet  this  amateur  of  Luke  and  his  fine 
style,  will  contend  that  the  Jewish  church  and  the 
Christian  had  '  one  and  the  same  religion;'  that 
is,  the  Jew's  religion  and  the  Christian  religion  are 
just  one  and  the  same  religion ! !  Yet  Paul  posi- 
tively, directly  and  literally  places  them  in  opposi- 
tion. Hear  him  say :  i  You  have  heard  of  my 
behaviour  in  the  Jeivs'  Religion — how  that,  beyond 
measure,  I  persecuted  the  church  of  God,  and  wasted 
it.'  Here  is  the  most  explicit  contradiction  of  Mr. 
Rice,  and  his  theory  of  identity,  that  can  be  ima- 
gined. Here  is  '  the  church  of  God '  and  '  the  Jews' 
religion,'  directly,  literally,  formally  contrasted,  and 
that,  too,  by  the  most  learned  apostle,  and  the  great- 
est teacher  of  Christianity  the  world  ever  saw,  or 
ever  will  see.  Which  of  us  now,  fellow- citizens, 
pays  the  greater  deference  to  the  sacred  style  ?  I 
state  this  fact,  that  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  58, 
when  Paul  wrote  to  the  Galatians  on  the  difference 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  179 

between  the  law,  the  covenant,  and  all  the  dispensa- 
tions of  redemption,  he  then  spoke  of  '  the  church  of 
God'  and  '  the  Jews'  religion,'  in  direct  and  positive 
contrast.  No  one  can,  in  my  humble  opinion,  dis- 
pose of  this  fact  and  argument  against  this  assumed 
identy.  Yet  Mr.  Rice  argues  that  the  Jews'  reli- 
gion and  Christ's  religion  are  one  and  the  same 
religion  ! ! "  * 

It  is  amazing  that  any  man,  even  tolerably  famil- 
iar with  his  Bible,  could  offer  such  an  argument. 
Who  does  not  know  that  "  the  Jews'  religion,"  in 
the  days  of  Paul,  was  radically  different  from  the 
religion  possessed  and  inculcated  by  Abraham, 
Moses,  and  the  prophets  ?  When  the  Jews  said  to 
Christ,  "  Abraham  is  our  father,"  he  answered, 
"  If  ye  were  Abraham's  children,  ye  would  do  the 
works  of  Abraham  ?  t  When  they  gloried  in  being 
Moses'  disciples,  did  he  not  answer:  "For  had  ye 
believed  Moses,  ye  would  have  believed  me:  for  he 
wrote  of  me?  "  J  That  is,  if  they  had  truly  embraced 
the  religion  of  Abraham  and  Moses,  they  would  have 
been  Christians.  Here  we  have  a  strong  contrast 
drawn  by  our  Saviour,  between  the  religion  of  the 
Old  Testament  and  "  the  Jews'  religion."  Yet  Mr. 
Campbell  could  bring  himself  to  believe,  that  the 
religion  which  rejected  and  crucified  Christ,  who  was 

*  Debate,  pp.  393,  394.  f  John,  8  :  33,  39. 

J  John,  5  :  46. 


180  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

foretold  and  prefigured  throughout  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ■,  and  which  clung  to  the  obsolete  ceremonies 
pointing  to  Christ — the  religion  which  made  Paul  a 
bitter  persecutor  and  blasphemer,  was  the  same  reli- 
gion taught  by  God  to  Abraham,  Moses,  and  the 
Jews  !  Dr.  Grill,  with  all  his  zeal  against  infant 
baptism,  could  not  embrace  such  absurdities.  Com- 
menting on  this  phrase — "  the  Jews'  religion,''  as 
used  by  Paul — he  says  :  "  Besides,  he  (Paul)  was 
brought  up  in  the  religion  of  the  Jews,  not  as  it  was 
founded  and  established  by  God,  but  as  it  was  cor- 
rupted by  them  ;  who  had  lost  the  true  sense  of  the 
oracles  of  God  committed  to  them,  the  true  use  of 
sacrifices,  and  the  end  of  the  law ;  had  added  to  it  a 
load  of  human  traditions  ;  placed  all  religion  in  bare 
doing,  and  taught  that  justification  and  salvation  lay 
in  the  observance  of  the  law  of  Moses,  and  the  tra- 
ditions of  the  elders."  The  answer  which  I,  at  the 
time,  gave  tc  Mr.  Campbell's  triumphant  argument, 
placed  the  subject  in  its  true  light.  It  was  in  the 
following  words  :  "  I  have  said,  that  there  has  been, 
properly  speaking,  but  one  true  religion  on  earth, 
and  that  the  Saviour  did  not  send  his  apostles  to 
establish  a  new  one.  Mr.  Campbell  insists  that  this 
cannot  be  true,  because  Paul  says,  that  before  his 
conversion  to  Christianity,  he  profited  in  the  Jews' 
religion.  But  at  the  time  when  Paul  was  converted, 
the  Jews'  religion  was  false.  The  prophecies  and 
the  sacrifices  of  the  Old  Testament  pointed  them  to 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  181 

the  Messiah,  as  the  Saviour  of  men.  They,  in  their 
blindness,  rejected  the  glorious  substance,  and  clung 
to  the  shadow.  They  had  rejected  the  Saviour,  and 
were  unbelievers — apostates.  Their  religion,  there- 
fore, was  false.  But  does  this  prove  that  the  piety 
of  Paul  as  a  Christian,  was  essentially  different  from 
the  piety  of  Abraham,  the  father  of  believers  ;  or 
from  that  of  Daniel,  or  Isaiah,  or  Jeremiah,  or 
other  devout  servants  of  God,  under  the  former 
dispensation  ?  "  Now,  let  me  ask  the  unprejudiced 
reader,  whether  he  believes  that  the  defence  of  the 
truth  leads  men  into  such  errors  as  that  of  Mr. 
Campbell,  respecting  "  the  Jews'  religion." 

There  are  two  general  arguments  which  prove  con- 
clusively, that  the  religion  of:  the  church  under  both 
dispensations,  is  the  same. 

1.  The  relations,  duties  and  necessities  of  men 
have  always  been  substantially  the  same.  Therefore, 
true  religion,  whose  nature  and  office  it  is  to  teach 
what  those  relations  are,  and  what  duties  arise  from 
them,  and  to  provide  for  those  necessities,  must 
always  have  been  substantially  the  same.  It  will 
scarcely  be  denied,  that  the  great  design  of  true 
religion  is,  to  acquaint  men  with  their  relations  and 
duties,  and  to  provide  for  their  necessities.  The 
following  points,  then,  are  clear  :  1st.  The  relations 
of  men  have  always  been  substantially  the  same  ; 
and,  therefore,  their  duties,  arising  out  of  these 
relations,  have  been  the  same.  They  sustain  to  God 
16* 


182  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

the  relation  of  creatures,  dependent  upon  his  good- 
ness for  existence,  and  for  all  the  blessings  of  life; 
and  out  of  this  relation  arises  the  obligation  to  wor- 
ship, love,  and  obey  him.  They  sustain  to  him  the 
relation  of  sinful  creatures  ;  and  hence  arises  the 
obligation  to  repent  and  reform.  They  sustain  to 
one  another  the  relation  §1  fellow -creatures  ;  and 
out  of  this  relation  arises  the  duty  to  love  our  neigh- 
bor as  ourselves.  Then  there  are  other  particular 
relations,  as  of  husband  and  wife,  parent  and  child, 
ruler  and  subject,  out  of  each  of  which  arise  cor- 
responding duties.  These  relations  and  the  duties 
arising  from  them,  have  always  been  substantially 
the  same  ;  and,  therefore,  religion,  so  far  as  it  con- 
sists in  a  correct  knowledge  of  these  relations  and 
duties,  and  a  faithful  discharge  of  the  duties,  has 
always  been  the  same. 

2d.  The  character  and  necessities  of  men  have 
always  been  the  same ;  and,  therefore,  all,  in  every 
age,  have  needed  the  same  method  of  salvation. 
Since  the  fall  of  man,  all  have  been  sinners  ;  and, 
consequently,  by  the  deeds  of  the  law,  none  could  be 
justified.  All  have  equally  needed  the  atonement 
and  intercession  of  Christ;  and,  all  must  be  justi- 
fied by  faith  in  him,  not  by  their  own  works.  All 
have  been  depraved ;  and,  therefore,  our  Saviour's 
declaration  to  Nichodemus  is  equally  true  of  all — 
"  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  except  a  man  be 
born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  Kingdom  of  God." 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  183 

And  as  all  have  needed  regeneration  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  so  "  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit"  in  regeneration 
and  sanctification,  have  always  been  the  same.  Love, 
faith,  repentance,  meekness,  humility,  etc.,  have 
always  characterized  true  piety.  Men,  in  every 
age,  have  always  been  equally  helpless,  and,  there- 
fore, equally  dependent  upon  Divine  Providence.  So 
far,  then,  as  religion  relates  to  the  salvation  of  lost 
men,  it  has  always  been  the  same. 

How  can  the  conclusion  be  avoided,  that  there  has 
been  in  the  world  but  one  true  religion,  which  has 
always  been  the  same?  Will  it  be  denied,  that  the 
relations  and  the  moral  obligations  of  men  have 
ever  been  the  same?  Most  certainly,  it  will  not. 
Will  it  be  denied,  that  the  character  and  the  necessi- 
ties of  men  have  been  the  same  ?  No  one  will  be  so 
unreasonable.  Will  it  be  denied,  that  true  religion 
is  that  which  teaches  men  these  relations,  and  these 
duties,  and  which  provides  for  these  necessities?  Im- 
possible. The  conclusion,  then,  is  demonstratively 
correct,  that  true  religion  has  always  been  the  same  ; 
and  consequently,  that  the  religion  which  God 
taught  Abraham,  and  Moses,  and  Isaiah,  and  David, 
is  the  same  as  that  of  Peter,  and  John,  and  Paul. 

2.  That  the  faith  or  religion  of  the  church  under 
both  dispensations  is  the  same,  is  evident  from  the 
abundant  teaching  of  the  Bible.  Religion  embraces 
three  principal  points,  viz  :  the  object  of  worship,  the 
rule  of  moral  obligation,  and  the  plan  of  salvation. 


184  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

Let  us  consider  each  of  these.  1st.  It  will  not  be 
denied,  that  under  both  despensations,  the  church 
worships  and  serves  the  same  God.  In  the  Lexing- 
ton Debate,  Mr.  Campbell  resorted  to  a  singular  eva- 
sion of  this  plain  fact.  Said  he :  "  Does  not  the  same 
God  reign  over  Kentucky  and  Jerusalem  ?  The  same 
God  reigns  over  the  Ottoman  Empire  and  the  United 
States;  are  they,  therefore,  the  same  people?"* 
Thus,  he  confounded  the  fact,  that  God  reigns  over 
the  wicked,  in  spite  of  their  opposition,  with  the 
widely  different  fact,  that  God's  people  willingly 
worship  and  serve  him.  All  who  truly  worship  and 
serve  the  same  God,  undoubtedly  have  the  same 
religion.  2d.  Under  both  dispensations,  the  church 
obeys  the  same  moral  law.  The  sum  and  substance 
of  this  perfect  law,  as  given  by  Moses,  in  Deut.,  6 : 
5,  Lev.,  19  :  18,  and  by  our  Saviour,  in  Matt.,  22: 
37,  39,  is  the  same  precisely.  Perfect  love,  acted 
out  in  all  the  relations  of  life,  is  the  requirement  of 
the  law,  as  expounded  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
taments. Mr.  Campbell,  in  the  same  debate,  sought 
to  evade  this  argument,  by  saying — "  Massachusetts 
colony,  for  a  time,  adopted  the  law  of  Moses  for  her 
law.  Was  Massachusetts  and  the  Jewish  church, 
therefore,  identical?  They  have  also  adopted  the 
same  code  of  morality  in  Kentucky  ;  but  is  this  com- 
monwealth and  the  Christian  church  identical  ?  "  f 

*  Debate,  p.  300.  f  Ibid. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  185 

This  is  the  merest  quibble.  It  is  not  true  that  either 
of  these  States  ever  adopted  the  moral  law ;  and 
if  it  were,  a  single  point  of  identity  does  not  consti- 
tute the  identity  of  a  religious  body.  If,  for  ex- 
ample, a  body  of  people  could  be  found,  professing 
to  keep  the  moral  law,  it  would  not  follow  that  they 
are  Christian  people.  Why?  Because  they  would 
not  hold  the  Gospel  of  Christ.  And  so,  if  a  body 
could  be  founJ,  professing  to  receive  the  Gospel,  but 
rejecting  the  moral  precepts  of  the  Bible,  they  could 
not  be  called  a  Christian  people.  Why?  Because 
they  would  make  the  Gospel  lead  to  licentiousness, 
and  make  Christ  a  minister  of  sin.  There  are  three 
things  essential  to  religion,  and  the  moral  law,  as 
the  rule  of  obligation,  is  only  one  of  them. 

3d.  The  third  thing  embraced  in  religion,  is  the 
Gospel  or  the  plan  of  salvation.  Now,  it  is  de- 
monstrably true,  that  under  both  dispensations,  the 
church  has  received  and  trusted  in  the  same  Gospel. 
This  is  clear  from  the  following  considerations : 

First.  The  Gospel  was  preached  to  Abraham  in 
the  covenant  into  which  God  entered  with  him.  Paul 
says  :  "  And  the  Scripture  foreseeing  that  God  would 
justify  the  heathen  through  faith,  preached  before  the 
Gospel  unto  Abraham,  saying,  In  thee  shall  all  na- 
tions be  blessed."  *  It  was  to  this  covenant  promise 
that  our  Saviour  referred,  when  he  said  to  the  Jews : 

*  Gal.,  3  :  8. 


186  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

"  Your  father  Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  my  day ;  and 
he  saw  it,  and  was  glad.'5  *  Accordingly,  we  are 
taught,  that  Abraham  was  justified  by  faith,  and 
that  "  they  which  are  of  faith  are  the  children  of 
Abraham,''  and  "  are  blessed  with  faithful  Abra- 
ham." f 

Secondly.  There  are  two  leading  doctrines  in  the 
Gospel,  viz  :  the  atonement,  through  which  believers 
are  justified,  and  sanctification,  by  which  sinners 
are  prepared  for  the  service  of  God  and  for  heaven. 
These  two  doctrines  are  abundantly  taught  in  the  Old 
Testament. 

The  great  doctrine  of  the  atonement  is  taught  in 
the  Old  Testament  in  two  ways.  In  the  first  place, 
it  is  taught  by  the  prophets.  For,  said  Peter, 
"To  him  (Christ)  give  all  the  prophets  witness, 
that  through  his  name,  whosoever  believeth  in  him, 
shall  receive  remission  of  sins."  J  And  who  can 
read  the  fifty- second  and  fifty-third  chapters  of 
Isaiah,  without  having;  the  cross  of  Christ  and  the 
atonement  placed  vividly  before  their  minds  ?  "  But 
he  was  wounded  for  our  transgressions,  he  was 
bruised  for  our  iniquities :  the  chastisement  of  our 
peace  was  upon  him ;  and  with  his  stripes,  we  are 
healed.  All  we,  like  sheep,  have  gone  astray ;  we 
have  turned  every  one  to  his  own  way ;  and  the  Lord 

*  John,  8  :  56.  f  Gal.,  3  :  7-9. 

t  Acts,  10:  43. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  187 

hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all."  The  same 
doctrine  was  taught  by  every  bloody  sacrifice  upon 
the  Jewish  altar.  How  clearly  does  the  apostle,  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  demonstrate  that  the 
Levitical  priesthood,  with  all  their  sacrifices,  was 
merely  typical  of  Christ  and  his  one  great  sacrifice, 
possessing  in  themselves  no  efficacy.  "How  blind 
must  they  be,55  says  Mr.  Carson,  "who  do  not  see 
the  atonement  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  in  the  sacri- 
fices of  Israel ! "  *  So  in  the  New  Testament,  we 
learn  that  the  atonement  of  Christ  was  efficacious  in 
securing  the  remission  of  sins  under  the  preceding 
dispensation.  u  And  for  this  cause,  he  is  the  Media- 
tor of  the  New  Testament,  that  by  means  of  death, 
for  the  redemption  of  the  transgressions  that  were 
under  the  first  Testament,  they  which  are  called 
might  receive  the  promise  of  eternal  inheritance."  t 
On  this  passage,  Dr.  Gill  says  :  "  The  sense  is, 
that  though  legal  sacrifices  could  not  atone  for  sins, 
nor  ceremonial  ablutions  cleanse  from  them ;  yet  the 
sins  of  the  Old  Testament  saints  were  expiated,  their 
iniquities  pardoned,  and  they  justified  and  saved 
through  the  blood  of  Christ,  the  Lamb  slain  from 
the  foundation  of  the  world."  It  is  clear,  then, 
beyond  all  question,  that  under  both  dispensations 
men  were  justified  by  faith  in  the  same  atonement, 
through  the  merits  of  the  same  Mediator. 

*  On  Baptism,  p.  344.  t  Heb->  9  :   15- 


188  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

Witt  equal  clearness  was  the  doctrine  of  sanctifi- 
cation,  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  taught  under  the  Old 
Dispensation  ;  so  that  our  Saviour  censured  Nicho- 
demus  for  being  a  teacher  in  Israel,  and.  yet  being 
ignorant  of  this  doctrine.  "  Art  thou  a  master  in 
Israel,  and  knowest  not  these  things  ?  "  *  How 
could  the  doctrine  be  more  clearly  taught,  than  by 
Ezekiel,  36:  25,  26  ?— "  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean 
water  upon  you,  and  you  shall  be  clean  :  from  all 
your  filthiness  and  from  all  your  idols  will  I  cleanse 
you.  A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new 
spirit  will  I  put  within  you  ;  and  I  will  take  away 
the  stony  heart  out  of  your  flesh,  and  I  will  give 
you  a  heart  of  flesh.  And  I  will  put  my  Spirit 
within  you,  and  cause  you  to  walk  in  my  statutes," 
etc.  It  was  in  view  of  the  same  doctrine,  the 
Psalmist  prayed — "  Create  in  me  a  clean  heart,  0 
God ;  and  renew  a  right  spirit  within  me."  t 

Since,  then,  these  two  great  doctrines  of  the  Gos- 
pel are  taught  in  the  Old  Testament,  all  the  other 
important  doctrines  must  be  there  ;  for  they  are 
inseparably  connected  with  these.  There  is  a  neces- 
sary connection  between  the  atonement  and  justifica- 
tion by  faith  ;  and  accordingly  Abraham's  faith  and 
justification  are  represented  as  identical  with  Christian 
faith  and  justification.  Read  the  fourth  chapter  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and  the  third  chapter  of 

*  John,  3  :  10.  f  ps.,  51 :  10. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  189 

the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  So  there  is  an  insepara- 
ble connection  between  regeneration  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  and  "  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit."  Under  the 
Old  Dispensation,  as  now,  men  were  convinced  of 
sin,  repented,  believed,  loved,  rejoiced.  The  reli- 
gious experience  of  pious  people,  being  the  fruit  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  must  be  substantially  the  same. 
And  what  Christian  ever  read  the  Old  Testament, 
especially  the  Psalms,  without  feeling  that  such  is 
the  fact  ? 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  show,  that  the  Old 
Testament  saints  rejoiced  in  the  hope  of  eternal  life, 
as  do  Christians.  "  These  all  died  in  faith,  not 
having  received  the  promises,  but  having  seen  them 
afar  off,  and  were  persuaded  of  them,  and  embraced 
them,  and  confessed  that  they  were  strangers  and 
pilgrims  on  the  earth.  For  they  that  say  such 
things,  declare  plainly  that  they  seek  a  country."  * 
The  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  is  also 
taught  in  the  Old  Testament.  Indeed,  all  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Gospel  are  taught  there  with  more  or 
less  plainness.  The  evidence,  therefore,  is  conclu- 
sive, that  under  both  dispensations  the  church  has 
received  the  same  Gospel,  and  trusted  in  the  same 
plan  of  salvation.  Mr.  Campbell's  evasion  of  this 
argument  shows  the  weakness  of  the  anti-pedobap- 
tist  cause.     He  said  "He  (Rice)  argues  the  identity 

*Heb.,ll:  13,14. 

17 


190  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

of  the  ancient  and  modern  churches,  because  they 
have  the  same  Gospel.  But  this  is  not  strictly  true, 
unless  upon  the  principle  that  France  and  England 
have  the  same  language,  because  they  have  the  same 
alphabet.  The  Christian  Gospel  is  not  that  the 
Messiah  is  to  come  ;  yet  that  was  the  Jewish  Gos- 
pel." *  Mr.  C.  acknowledges  that  the  only  differ- 
ence between  the  Christian  Gospel  and  the  Jewish 
Gospel  is,  that  the  latter  proclaimed  the  Messiah  to 
come,  and  the  former  proclaims  the  Messiah  as  hav- 
ing come.  Through  types  and  prophecies,  the  Jews 
looked  forward  to  the  advent  of  the  promised  Mes- 
siah and  his  atonement,  and  trusted  in  him  ;  whilst 
through  the  inspired  record  and  the  Lord's  supper, 
Christians  look  back  to  the  Messiah  as  having  come 
and  offered  the  one  efficacious  sacrifice  for  sin.  But, 
confessedly,  both  Jews  and  Christians  trusted  in  the 
same  Saviour,  and,  therefore,  had  the  same  faith, 
the  same  religion.  Is  there,  then,  any  such  differ- 
ence as  between  the  French  and  English  languages  ? 
It  is,  then,  clear,  beyond  all  question,  that  in  the 
three  points  which  constitute  the  substance  of  reli- 
gion— the  object  of  worship,  the  moral  code,  and 
the  plan  of  salvation — the  Abrahamic  church  had 
the  same  religion  which  the  Christian  church  has. 
If,  then,  the  identity  of  the  church  consists,  as  we 
have   proved,  in  its   continuing    to   hold  the   same 

*  Lexington  Debate,  pp.  333,  334. 


IXFAXT  BAPTISM.  191 

religion,  the  identity  of  the  church,  under  the   Old 
and  New  Dispensations,  is  demonstrated. 

But  it  may  be  said,  that  though  pious  Jews  had 
the  same  religion  which  Christians  have,  yet  the 
Jewish  church,  as  a  body,  was  a  secular  organiza- 
tion, not  professing,  nor  requiring,  individual  mem- 
bers to  profess  religion.  The  opposers  of  infant 
baptism,  as  I  have  before  remarked,  constantly  con- 
found the  Abrahamic  church  with  the  Jewish  state, 
although  the  Scriptures  represent  them  as  quite  dis- 
tinct. The  following  differences  between  the  church 
and  the  state  have  already  been  pointed  out. 

1st.  The  church  existed  four  hundred  years  before 
the  state — before  the  descendants  of  Abraham  had 
any  civil  code. 

2d.  A  civil  code  was  enacted  for  the  church,  be- 
cause it  was  to  be  kept  separate,  until  the  advent  of 
Christ,  from  all  other  nations.  It  was,  therefore, 
absolutely  necessary  that  a  civil  government  should 
be  organized. 

3d.  The  terms  of  citizenship  in  the  state,  and 
of  membership  in  the  church,  were  quite  different. 
Gentiles  might  become  citizens,  without  becoming 
members  of  the  church.  They  might  be  "prose- 
lytes of  the  gate,"  observing  the  civil  law,  without 
becoming  "  proselytes  of  righteousness,"  and  sub- 
mitting to  circumcision. 

4th.  Proselytes  from  the  Gentiles  might  become 
members  of   the  church,  without  becoming  citizens 


192  INFANT  BAPTISM, 

of  the  Jewish  commonwealth.  There  were  many 
such,  who  continued  to  reside  in  their  own  countries , 
but  attended  the  festivals  at  Jerusalem. 

5th.  A  Jew  might  become  the  subject  of  another 
civil  government,  without  forfeiting  his  standing  as 
a  member  of  the  church.  Many  such  were  at  Jeru- 
salem on  the  day  of:  Pentecost,  when  the  Spirit 
was  poured  out  in  his  converting  and  miraculous 
powers. 

6r-h.  It  may  be  added,  that  the  officers  in  the 
church  were  entirely  different  from  those  in  the  state. 
In  the  former,  priests,  Levites  and  prophets  officia- 
ted ;  in  the  latter,  judges  and  kings  ruled.  But  a 
civil  officer  could  not  minister  at  the  altar ;  nor  an 
ecclesiastical  officer  administer  the  civil  law.  In 
some  instances,  as  in  the  case  of  Samuel,  the  two 
offices  were  filled  by  the  same  man,  just  as  we  some- 
times see  a  minister  of  the  Gospel  a  member  of  the 
Legislature  ;  but  they  were  never  confounded. 

It  is  most  evident,  then,  that  the  church  and  the 
State,  though  in  large  part  composed  of  the  same 
persons,  were  quite  different  organizations.  The 
church  was  strictly  a  religious  body,  professing  the 
only  true  religion.  This  is  evident  from  the  follow- 
ing considerations  : 

1st.  The  church  entered  into  a  covenant  with  God, 
which  required  its  members  truly  to  worship  and  serve 
him  ;  and  of  this  covenant,  circumcision  was  the 
seal.    "  This  ordinance,"  says  Rev.  Andrew  Fuller, 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  193 

a  very  able  Baptist  writer,  "  was  the  mark  by  which 
they  (Abraham  and  his  descendants)  were  distin- 
guished as  a  people  in  covenant  with  Jehovah,  and 
which  bound  them  by  a  special  obligation  to  obey 
him.  Like  almost  all  other  positive  institutions,  it 
was  also  prefigurative  of  mental  purity,  or  putting 
off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh."  *  That  the 
covenant  between  God  and  the  Jews  required  piety, 
is  further  evident  from  the  following  language : 
"  Now,  therefore,  if  ye  will  obey  my  voice  indeed, 
and  keep  my  covenant,  then  ye  shall  be  a  peculiar 
treasure  unto  me  above  all  people  :  for  all  the  earth 
is  mine.  And  ye  shall  be  unto  me  a  kingdom  of 
priests  and  a  holy  nation."  f 

2d.  All  the  ordinances  of  the  church  were  strictly 
religious  ;  and  the  proper  observance  of  them  re- 
quired true  piety.  Circumcision  was  a  religious 
rite.  Since  it  was  the  seal  of  a  covenant  between 
God  and  his  people,  how  could  it  be  otherwise  ?  To 
Abraham  it  was  "  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of 
faith."  J  And  Paul  pronounces  it  worthless,  with- 
out regeneration  and  true  piety.  u  For  circumcision 
verily  profiteth  if  thou  keep  the  law ;  but  if  thou  be 
a  breaker  of  the  law,  thy  circumcision  is  made  uncir- 
cumcision.  *  *  *  For  he  is  not  a  Jew  which  is 
one  outwardly ;  neither  is  that  circumcision  which  is 

*  Lect.  on  Gen.,  17.  f  Exod.,  19  :  5,  6. 

£  Rom.,  4  :  11. 

IT* 


194  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

outward  in  the  flesh  :  but  he  is  a  Jew  which  is  one 
inwardly ;  and  circumcision  is  that  of  the  heart,  in 
the  spirit,  and  not  in  the  letter,  whose  praise  is  not 
of  men,  but  of  God."  *  It  is  amazing,  that  any 
one  acquainted  with  his  Bible,  should  regard  this 
ordinance  as  merely  or  chiefly  a  national  sign.  It 
secured  to  its  subjects  no  national  privileges.  To 
the  Gentile  proselyte  and  his  family,  residing  in 
their  own  country,  it  secured  none  but  religious  priv- 
ileges, and  required  none  but  religious  duties. 

It  will  not  be  denied,  that  the  bloody  sacrifices  and 
ablutions,  and  the  entire  temple  service,  were  strictly 
religious.  The  bloody  sacrifices  pointed  to  the  atone- 
ment of  Christ,  and  the  ablutions,  to  the  work  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  And  the  entire  service  was  designed 
to  beget  and  cherish  true  religion ;  and  over  and  over 
again  are  we  taught,  that  the  wickedness  of  the  peo- 
ple rendered  their  attendance  upon  the  ordinances 
wholly  unacceptable.  Read,  for  example,  the  first 
chapter  of  Isaiah. 

3d.  The  relation  between  God  and  the  Jewish 
church  is  represented,  just  as  that  between  Christ 
and  his  church,  by  the  marriage  relation.  "  For 
thy  Maker  is  thy  husband ;  the  Lord  of  Hosts  is  his 
name  ;  and  thy  Redeemer  the  Holy  one  of  Israel."! 
And  the  idolatry  of  the  Jewish  church  is  compared 
to  the  unfaithfulness  of   a  wife   to  her  husband.  J 

*  Rom.,  2  :  25-29.  f  Isaiah,  54  :  5.        %  Jer.,  ch.  3. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  195 

Mr.  Carson  says:  "  God  is  everywhere  in  the  Old 
Testament  considered  as  the  husband  of  Israel."  * 
Will  any  one  pretend,  that  God  could  represent  him- 
self as  the  husband  of  a  body  of  people,  who  did  not 
even  profess  to  be  pious  ? 

These  facts  and  others  that  might  be  mentioned, 
demonstrate,  not  only  that  the  religion  of  pious  in- 
dividuals amongst  the  Jews  was  identical  with  that  of 
Christians  ;  but  that  this  true  religion  was  professed 
by  the  Jewish  church  as  a  body.  Most  certainly  it 
was,  at  times,  exceedingly  corrupt  ;  but  the  same 
charge  must  be  made  also  against  the  Christian 
church.  But  departures  from  the  path  of  truth  and 
righteousness  do  not  prove  that  a  contrary  profession 
was  not  made. 

We  come,  then,  to  the  clear  and  unavoidable  con- 
clusion, that  the  church  under  both  dispensations 
professes  the  same  religion ;  and,  consequently, 
that  the  Abrahamic  church  is  identical  with  the  Chris- 
tian Church. 

There  are  several  other  ways  in  which  the  same 
truth  is  established.     Consider  the  following  : 

1.  The  relation  between  Abraham  and  Christians* 
is  that  of  a  father  to  his  children.  lt  And  if  ye 
be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs 
according  to  the  promise."  f  "  And  he  received 
the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  righteousness 

*  On  Baptism,  p.  355.  f  Gal.,  3  :  29. 


196  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

of  the  faith  which  he  had,  being  yet  uncircum- 
cised ;  that  he  might  be  the  father  of  all  them 
that  believe,  though  they  be  not  circumcised."  * 
Let  the  fact  be  noted,  that  Christians  are  never 
called  the  children  of  Enoch,  of  Noah,  of  David, 
or  of  any  other  eminent  believer ;  but  they  are 
called  "Abraham's  seed."  Evidently,  therefore, 
they  sustain  to  him  a  peculiar  relation.  What  con- 
stitutes this  relation  ?  I  answer,  the  covenant  into 
which  God  entered  with  Abraham,  to  which  Paul 
refers,  when  he  says,  in  the  passage  just  quoted, 
Christians  are  "  heirs  according  to  the  promise." 
This  covenant,  which  is  mentioned  in  the  twelfth 
chapter  of:  Genesis,  repeated  in  the  fifteenth,  and 
ratified  by  circumcision  in  the  seventeenth,  contained 
three  promises,  viz  :  of  a  numerous  natural  seed  ; 
that  that  seed  should  inherit  the  land  of  Canaan  ; 
and  that  in  his  seed  all  the  families  of  the  earth 
should  be  blessed.  This  last,  which  is  the  great 
promise,  is  declared  by  Paul  to  contain  the  Gospel. 
Two  of  these  promises  have  received  their  fulfill- 
ment. The  third  is  now  being  fulfilled.  The  Scrip- 
tures make  a  distinction  between  the  Abrahamic  cove- 
nant and  the  covenant  made  at  Sinai,  four  hundred 
and  thirty  years  after.  The  latter,  which  is  called 
"  the  law,"  Paul  says,  "  was  added  [to  the  Abra- 
hamic   covenant]   because  of  trangressions,  till  the 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  197 

seed  should  come  to  whom  the  promise  was  made."* 
It  was  a  temporary  addition,  designed  to  serve  a  par- 
ticular purpose,  till  Christ  should  come.  This  law 
or  covenant  of  Sinai,  is  compared  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  to  an  old  garment  or  article  which  is 
worn  out.  "  Now  that  which  decayeth  and  waxeth 
old,  is  ready  to  vanish  away."  f  But  the  covenant 
with  Abraham  is  never  called  old,  or  represented  as 
passing  away.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  declared  to 
contain  the  Gospel  itself,  which  cannot  pass  away. 
Dr.  Gill,  commenting  on  Gal.,  3:  16,  says  :  "  The 
promises  design  the  promises  of  the  covenant  of 
grace,  mentioned  in  the  next  verse,  which  are  ex- 
ceeding great  and  precious,  better  than  those  of  any 
other  covenant ;  and  which  are  all  yea  and  amen  in 
Christ,  and  are  chiefly  of  a  spiritual  nature,"  etc. 
This  covenant  is  called  new,  not  as  to  the  substance 
of  it,  but  only  as  to  the  mode  of  administration 
under  the  New  Dispensation.  Dr.  Gill,  in  expound- 
Heb.,  8:8,  says — the  new  covenant  is  "so  called, 
not  because  new-made ;  for,  with  respect  to  its  orig- 
inal constitution,  it  was  made  from  eternity ;  Christ, 
the  Mediator  of  it,  and  with  whom  it  was  made,  was 
set  up  from  everlasting  ;  and  promises  and  blessings 
of  grace  were  put  into  his  hands  before  the  world 
began  ;  nor  is  it  newly  revealed,  for  it  was  made 
known  to  Adam,  and,  in  some  measure,  to  all  the 

*Gal.,  3:  19.  fHeb.,8:  8-13. 


198  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

Old-Testament  saints,  though  it  is  more  clearly  re- 
vealed than  it  was  ;  but  is  so  called  in  distinction 
from  the  former  administration  of  it,  which  is  waxen 
old  and  vanisheth  away,"  etc. 

Some  anti-pedo-baptists  have  been  quite  unwilling 
to  admit  that  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  recorded 
in  Genesis  17,  is  the  covenant  of  grace,  or  contains 
the  promise  of  spiritual  blessings  ;  for  if  this  cove- 
nant made  Abraham  the  father  of  the  visible  church 
of  God,  under  both  dispensations,  it  would  be  im- 
possible to  escape  the  proof:  of  the  identity  of  the 
church  before  and  after  the  death  of  Christ.  But 
Rev.  Andrew  Fuller,  one  of  the  ablest  Baptist  writers, 
in  his  lecture  on  this  passage,  says  : 

"  The  first  promise  in  this  covenant  is,  that 
he  shall  be  the  father  of  many  nations;  and, 
as  a  token  of  it,  his  name  in  future  is  to  be 
called  Abraham.  He  had  the  name  of  a  high  or 
eminent  father,  from  the  beginning;  but  now  it 
shall  be  more  comprehensive,  indicating  a  very  large 
progeny.  By  the  exposition  given  of  this  promise  in 
the  New  Testament,  (Rom.,  4:  16,  17,)  we  are 
directed  to  understand  it,  not  only  of  those  who 
sprang  from  Abraham's  body,  though  these  were 
many  nations  ;  but  also  of  all  that  should  be  of  the 
faith  of  Abraham.  It  went  to  make  him  the  father 
of  the  church  of  God  in  all  future  ages  ;  or,  as  the 
apostle  calls  him,  the  heir  of  the  world.  In  this 
view,  he  is  the  father  of  many,  even  of  a  multitude 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  199 

of  nations.  All  that  the  Christian  world  enjoys,  or 
ever  will  enjoy,  it  is  indebted  for  it  to  Abraham  and 
his  seed.  A  high  honor  this,  to  be  the  father  of  the 
faithful,  the  stock  from  which  the  Messiah  should 
spring,  and  on  which  the  church  of  God  should 
grow."  * 

Mr.  Carson  tries  to  evade  the  force  of  this  argu- 
ment, by  saying,  "  the  promise — 6  I  will  be  a  God 
to  thee,'  etc.,  has  a  letter  and  a  spirit."  f  And  Mr. 
Campbell  thought,  it  promised  only  temporal  bless- 
ings. \  But,  as  Fuller  shows,  the  promise  that  Abra- 
ham should  be  a  father  of  many  nations,  makes  him 
the  father  of  the  Christian  church,  and  this  promise 
was  sealed  by  circumcision. 

Now,  would  it  not  be  a  singular  proceeding  to 
contend,  that  the  father  and  part  of  the  children 
were  in  one  church,  and  the  rest  of  the  children  in 
another  church  of  a  radically  different  character  ? — 
to  have  two  churches,  the  one  carnal,  and  the  other 
spiritual,  built  upon  the  same  covenant? — to  have 
the  spiritual  father,  and  part  of  his  spiritual  children, 
live  and  die  in  the  carnal  organization,  and  the  rest 
of  his  spiritual  children  placed  in  a  spiritual  church  ? 
To  such  inconsistencies  are  those  driven,  who  deny 
the  identity  of  the  church  under  the  Old  and  Xew 
Dispensations. 

*  Fuller's  Works,  vol.  5,  p.  153. 
f  On  Bap.,  p.  354.  %  Lex.  Debate,  p.  345. 


200  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

2.  Christians  sustain  to  the  church  which  existed 
before  Christ  came,  the  relation  of  the  branches  of 
of  a  tree  to  the  tree;  and  no  one  denies,  that  the 
branches  are  part  of  the  tree.  Will  the  reader  take 
his  Bible,  and  read  carefully  in  the  eleventh  chapter 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  from  the  sixteenth  to 
the  twenty-fourth  verse?  The  first  question  that 
arises  concerning  this  Scripture,  is  respecting  the 
good  olive  tree;  what  is  it?  This  question,  Mr. 
Campbell  answered  as  follows:  "A  portion  of  the 
Jews  believed — they  became  the  nucleus  of  the  New 
Dispensation.  They  are  the  first  fruits,  and  the 
root  of  the  Christian  church.  They  hold  by  faith, 
and  not  by  flesh,  all  the  spiritual  blessings  promised 
Abraham.  Paul  compares  them  to  a  good  olive  tree, 
of  which,  in  one  sense,  Abraham  was  the  root — 
standing  as  a  spiritual  father  to  the  believing  Jews, 
and  as  containing  in  the  covenant,  made  with  him 
concerning  Christ,  all  these  blessings."*  Now,i£  Mr. 
Campbell  means,  as  he  evidently  does,  that  a  neiv 
church,  organized  of  the  first  converts  to  Chris- 
tianity, radically  different  from  the  previously  exist- 
ing church,  was  the  good  olive  tree,  he  is  met  by  two 
insurmountable  difficulties.  In  the  first  place,  the 
unbelieving  Jews  were  not  broken  off  from  those 
first  converts ;  for  a  branch  cannot  be  broken  from 
a  tree  with  which  it  has  no  connection.     But  the 

*  Lex.  Debate,  p.  397. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  201 

apostle  says,  the  Jews  were  broken  off  from  the  good 
olive  tree.  That  tree,  then,  must  be  the  church 
of  which  they  were  members.  In  the  second  place, 
the  unbelieving  Jews  could  not  be  called  "  the 
natural  branches  "  of  the  first  Christian  church ; 
nor  could  it  be  called  u  their  own  olive  tree." 
For  anti-pedo-baptists  insist,  that  the  Christian 
church  is  established  on  principles  as  different  from 
those  oE  the  Jewish  church,  as  spirit  and  flesh. 
"  The  two  principles  of  flesh  and  spirit,  natural 
and  supernatural  birth,"  says  Mr.  Campbell,  "  are 
now  clearly  shown  to  be  the  differential  character  of 
the  two  institutions.  We  have,  then,  two  communi- 
ties, under  two  very  distinct  constitutions,  of  very 
different  spirit,  character,  and  circumstances. "  * 
Now,  the  puzzling  question  is,  how  could  the  mem- 
bers of  the  fleshly  institution  be  "  the  natural 
branches"  or  members  of  the  spiritual  institution  ? 
How  could  Paul,  speaking  of  the  fleshly  members, 
call  the  spiritual  institution  "  their  own  olive  tree" — 
their  own  church  ?  It  is  impossible  to  avoid  the  con- 
clusion, that  the  good  olive  tree  is  the  Jewish  church  ; 
for  the  Jews  were  the  natural  branches  of  no  other ; 
and  they  could  claim  no  other  as  "  their  own." 

But  two  important  truths  are  stated  by  the  apos- 
tle. The  first  is,  that  the  Gentile  converts  were 
graffed  into  the  same  olive  tree  from  which  the  Jews 


*  Lex.  Debate,  p.  332. 

18 


202  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

were  broken  off;  and  the  second  is,  that  the  Jews, 
when  converted  to  Christianity,  shall  be  again  grafted 
into  their  own  olive  tree  —  the  same  tree  from 
which  they  were  broken  off.  Now,  it  is  admitted,  of 
course,  that  the  Gentile  converts  were  received  into 
the  Christian  church ;  and  that  all  converted  Jews 
are  received  into  the  same  church.  I  declare  solemn- 
ly, I  do  not  see  how  prejudice  itself  can  evade  the 
conclusion,  that  the  church  existing  before  the  cruci- 
fixion o£  Christ,  is  identical  with  the  Christian  church. 
If  a  tree  and  the  branches  growing  on  it,  constitute 
one  tree,  then  the  church,  under  the  Old  and  New 
Dispensations,  is  one  and  the  same  church. 

3.  The  Christian  church  is  represented  in  the 
Scriptures,  not  as  a  neiv  church,  but  as  the  same 
church  which  previously  existed,  enlarged  for  the 
reception  of  the  Gentiles.  Isaiah  thus  addresses 
the  church  :  "  Sing,  0  barren,  thou  that  didst  not 
bear;  break  forth  into  singing,  and  cry  aloud,  thou 
that  didst  not  travail  with  child  :  for  more  are  the 
children  of  the  desolate  than  the  children  of  the 
married  wife,  saith  the  Lord.*  Enlarge  the  place  of 
thy  tent,  and  let  them  stretch  forth  the  curtains  of 
thy  habitations :  spare  not,  lengthen  thy  cords,  and 
strengthen  thy  stakes  ;  for  thou  shalt  break  forth  on 
the  right  hand  and  on  the  left ;  and  thy  seed  shall  in- 
herit the  Gentiles,  and  make  the  desolate  cities  to  be 

♦Isaiah,  54:  1-3. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  203 

inhabited."  Read  this  entire  chapter,  and  it  "will 
be  perfectly  clear — 1st.  That  the  prophet  addresses 
the  Jewish  church  in  her  barrenness  and  affliction ; 
2d.  That  he  predicts  a  time  when  her  children  shall 
wonderfully  increase  by  the  conversion  of  the  Gen- 
tiles ;  and  3d.  That  preparatory  to  their  reception, 
suitable  changes  should  be  made  in  her  ordinances 
and  worship,  which  is  called  lenthening  her  cords, 
enlarging  the  place  of  her  tent,  etc.  Now,  let  me 
ask  the  candid  reader,  when  did  the  Jewish  church, 
here  addressed  as  barren  and  afflicted,  increase  the 
size  of  her  habitations,  and  receive  the  Gentiles  ? 
Never,  until  the  New  Dispensation.  The  Gentile 
converts  entered,  not  into  a  new  church,  but  into  the 
old  church  prepared  for  their  reception.  And  when 
were  the  glorious  promises,  made  in  this  chapter,  to 
the  Jewish  church,  fulfilled  ?  It  is  absolutely  cer- 
tain that  they  were  not  fulfilled  under  the  Old 
Dispensation ;  and  they  are  not  completely  fulfilled 
even  yet. 

The  same  truth  is  plainly  taught  in  the  sixtieth 
chapter  of  this  same  prophecy:  "  Arise,  shine  ;  for 
thy  light  is  come,  and  the  glory  of  the  Lord  is  risen 
upon  thee.  For,  behold,  the  darkness  shall  cover 
the  earth,  and  gross  darkness  the  people  ;  but  the 
Lord  shall  arise  upon  thee,  and  his  glory  shall  be 
seen  upon  thee.  And  the  Gentiles  shall  come  to  thy 
light,  and  kings  to  the  brightness  of  thy  rising. 
Lift  up  thine  eyes  round  about   and  see  ;  all  they 


204  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

gather  themselves  together,  they  come  to  thee  ;  thy 
sons  shall  come  from  far,  and  thy  daughters  shall 
be  nursed  at  thy  side.  Then  shalt  thou  see,  and 
flow  together,  and  thy  heart  shall  fear,  and  be  en- 
larged ;  because  the  abundance  of  the  sea  shall  be 
converted  unto  thee  ;  and  the  forces  of  the  Gentiles 
shall  come  unto  thee."  Read  this  entire  chapter  and 
the  following  chapter,  and  say  whether  these  glorious 
promises,  made  to  the  Jewish  church  in  her  afflic- 
tions, were  ever  fulfilled  under  the  Old  Dispensation. 
Most  certainly  they  were  not.  Then  if  they  be 
fulfilled  at  all,  the  same  church  to  which  they  were 
made,  must  have  continued  under  the  Xew  Dispensa- 
tion, and  must  continue  even  to  the  present  day. 

The  same  truth  is  confirmed  by  the  apostle  James, 
in  his  address  to  the  council  at  Jerusalem.  "  Simeon 
hath  declared  how  God,  tt  the  first,  did  visit  the 
Gentiles,  to  take  out  of  them  a  people  for  his  name. 
And  to  this  agree  the  words  of  the  prophets,  as  it  is 
written,  After  this,  I  will  return,  and  will  build  again 
the  tabernacle  of  David,  which  is  fallen  down  ;  and 
I  will  build  again  the  ruins  thereof  ;  and  I  will  set 
it  up  :  that  the  residue  of  men  might  seek  after  the 
Lord,  and  all  the  Gentiles  upon  whom  my  name  is 
called, ,?  etc.*  Dr.  Gill,  the  Baptist  commentator, 
says  :  "  The  tabernacle  of  David  designs  the  spirit- 
ual kingdom  or  church  of  Christ,  who  is  here  called 

*  Acts,  15:   13-17. 


INFAXT  BAPTISE.  205 

David;"  and  that  "  the  raising  up  and  rebuilding 
of  the  tabernacle  must  design  the  reviving  of  true 
religion,  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  it,  the  enlarge- 
ment of  the  church  of  God,  by  the  conversion  both 
of  Jews  and  Gentiles."  It  is,  then,  perfectly  clear, 
that  at  the  introduction  of  the  New  Dispensation,  a 
new  church  was  not  organized,  but  the  existing  church, 
which  had  become  dilapidated,  was  built  again,  and 
the  Gentiles  received  into  it. 

4.  The  argument  for  the  identity  of  the  church 
under  both  dispensations,  is  greatly  strengthened  by 
the  fact,  that  the  apostles  and  the  one  hundred 
and  twenty  disciples*  did  not  receive  Christian 
baptism.  In  times  past,  our  Baptist  brethren  con- 
tended earnestly  that  John's  Baptism  was  Christian 
baptism ;  but  this  ground  is  now,  I  believe,  gene- 
rally abandoned.  In  his  Christian  Baptist,  Alex- 
ander Campbell  has  demonstrated  the  radical  differ- 
ence between  them,  f  Mr.  Carson  says:  "  The 
baptism  of  John  was  in  two  points  essentially  differ- 
ent from  the  baptism  of  the  apostolic  commission." 
These  points,  he  thus  states  :  "  John  did  not  baptize 
unto  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost :  he  did  not  baptize  into  the  faith 
of  Christ  as  come,  but  as  about  to  be  made  mani- 
fest.'' Again,  "  John's  baptism  did  not  serve  for 
Christ's."     On  Bap.,  pp.  281,  284. 


*  Acts,  1 :  1.3.  f  PP-  647,  648. 

18* 


206  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

John's  ministry  and  baptism  really  belonged  to  the 
Old  Dispensation,  and  were  only  prejoaratory  to 
the  New.  His  work  was  "  to  make  ready  a  people 
prepared  for  the  Lord."*  The  Old  Dispensation, 
with  all  its  ceremonies,  continued  until  the  crucifixion 
of  Christ ;  and,  therefore,  one  of  his  last  acts, 
before  suffering  death,  was  to  partake,  with  his  dis- 
ciples, of  the  Passover.  The  baptism  of  John, 
which  was  identical  with  that  administered  by  the 
disciples  of  Christ,  was  administered  to  those  who 
professed  repentance  and  a  willingness  to  receive  the 
Messiah.  But  it  was  not  an  initiatory  rite,  and  was 
not  administered  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity. 

That  John's  baptism  was  not  Christian  baptism,  is 
demonstrated  by  the  fact,  that  his  disciples  were  re- 
bap  tizecl  by  Paul.  At  Ephesus,  he  found  certain 
disciples,  and  asked  them — "  Have  ye  received  the 
Holy  Ghost  since  ye  believed  ?  And  they  said  unto 
him,  We  have  not  so  much  as  heard  whether  there 
be  any  Holy  Ghost.  And  he  said  said  unto  them, 
Unto  what  then  were  you  baptized  ?  And  they  said, 
Unto  John's  baptism.  Then  said  Paul,  John  verily 
baptized  with  the  baptism  of  repentance,  saying  unto 
the  people,  that  they  should  believe  on  him,  which 
should  come  after  him,  that  is,  on  Christ  Jesus.  When 
they  heard  this,  they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord  Jesus."  t     Dr.  Gill  comments  on  this  last 

*  Luke,  1 ;  17.  f  Acts,  19  :  1-5. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  207 

verse  as  follows:  "  When  they  heard  this — that 
is,  the  people  to  whom  John  preached,  his  hearers ; 
when  they  heard  of  the  Messiah,  and  that  Jesus  was 
he,  and  that  it  became  them  to  believe  in  him,  they 
were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus; 
not  the  disciples  that  Paul  found  at  Ephesus,  but  the 
hearers  of  John."  But  Alexander  Campbell,  after 
asserting  that  all  the  disciples  of  John  were  required 
to  receive  Christian  baptism,  says  :  "  I  know  to  what 
tortures  the  passage  has  been  subjected  by  such  cold, 
cloudy  and  sickening  commentators  as  John  Gill. 
But  no  man  can,  with  any  regard  to  the  grammar  of 
language,  or  the  import  of  the  most  definite  words, 
make  Luke  say,  that  when  those  twelve  men  heard 
Paul  declare  the  design  of  immersion,  (baptism,) 
they  were  not  baptized  into  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus.  Nothing  but  the  bewildering  influence  of 
some  phantasy,  of  some  blind  adoration  of  some 
favorite  speculation,  could  so  far  becloud  any  man's 
mind  as  to  make  him  suppose  for  a  moment,  that 
those  twelve  persons  were  not  immersed  (baptized) 
into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  Robert  Hall, 
one  of  the  most  eminent  Baptists  of  England,  says  : 
Ci  In  the  whole  compass  of  theological  controversy, 
it  would  be  difficult  to  find  a  stronger  instance  of 
the  force  of  prejudice  in  obscuring  a  plain  matter  of 
fact." 

It  is,  then,  perfectly  clear,  that  John's  baptism 
was   not    Christian   baptism.     The    question,    then, 


208  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

arises,  when  did  the  apostles  of  Christ  receive  Chris- 
tian baptism  ?  And  by  whom  was  it  administered  to 
them  ?  That  they  did  not  receive  Christian  baptism, 
was  admitted  by  Mr.  Campbell,  in  the  Lexington 
Debate;  but  he  said,  "  When  a  person  is  appointed 
by  God  to  set  up  an  institution,  he  is  not  himself  to 
be  regarded  as  a  subject  of  that  institution.  *  '* 
Some  one  must  commence  the  institution  —  there 
must  be  some  one  to  commence  Christian  baptism ; 
that  could  not  be  done  till  Jesus  had  died,  was 
buried,  and  rose  again,"  etc.*  But  this  evasion  of 
the  difficulty  will  not  answer.  Abraham  set  up  the 
institution  of  circumcision,  and  yet  he  was  himself 
circumcised.  Aaron,  the  first  Jewish  high  priest, 
was  consecrated  just  as  were  his  successors.  Why, 
then,  did  not  the  apostles  receive  Christian  bap- 
tism? 

But  the  argument  is  vet  stronger.  Let  anv  un- 
prejudiced  person  read  the  account  given  in  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  of  the  baptisms  on  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost ;  and  he  will  be  satisfied,  that  not  only  the 
apostles,  but  the  disciples  associated  with  them, 
amongst  whom  was  the  mother  of  Christ,  were  mem- 
bers of  the  Christian  church,  without  receiving  Chris- 
tian baptism.  Not  an  intimation  is  given,  that  any 
but  the  new  converts  received  baptism.  "  Then  they 
that  gladly  received  the  word  were  baptized  ;  and  the 

*  p.  356. 


IKFAXT  BAPTISM.  209 

same  clay,  there  were  added  unto  them  about  three 
thousand  souls."*  No  new  church  was  organized  ; 
but  the  young  converts  were  added  to  the  existing 
church.  The  apostles  and  the  disciples  associated 
with  them  were  the  branches  of  the  good  olive  tree, 
that  were  not  broken  off  because  of  unbelief.  They, 
therefore,  did  not  receive  the  new  initiatory  rite. 
Being  already  in  the  church,  they  did  not  come  in 
by  the  new  door.  Those  who  had  rejected  Christ, 
and  had  been  rejected  by  him,  as  were  the  great 
body  of  the  Jews,  when  converted,  were  graffed 
again  into  the  good  olive  tree  ;  they  came  in  by  the 
existing  door.  For  no  body  would  acknowledge  and 
use  two  initiatory  rites  at  the  same  time,  especially 
when  one  of  these  had  become  the  badge  of  apos- 
tates and  enemies.  The  fact,  that  those  who  did  not 
reject  Christ,  but  associated  themselves  with  him  and 
his  disciples,  were  members  of  the  Christian  church 
by  virtue  of  their  circumcisio??,  demonstrates, 
beyond  cavil,  the  identity  of  the  church  under  both 
dispensations. 

The  very  fact,  that  anti-pedo-baptists  have  felt 
constrained  to  deny  a  truth  so  abundantly  taught  in 
the  Scriptures,  as  the  identity  of  the  church  under 
both  dispensations,  affords  strong  reason  to  suspect 
that  infant  baptism  is  scriptural.  Opposition  to  an 
unscriptural  doctrine,  could  not  drive  men  into  the 

*  Acts,  2  :  41. 


210  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

denial  of  important  truths,  plainly  taught  through- 
out the  Scriptures.  Some  of  them  are  willing  to 
admit  similarity  between  the  Jewish  and  Christian 
church,  but  not  identity.  Mr.  Campbell  says : 
c<  Mr.  Rice  argues  that  the  Jewish  and  Christian 
churches  are  identical.  But  he  seems  to  confound 
similarity  with  identity.  They  are,  indeed,  very 
different  predicaments."  *  But  what  are  the  points 
of  similarity  between  two  institutions  as  different  in 
their  nature  as  flesh  and  spirit  ?  The  Bible  says 
nothing  of  similarity ;  but  it  does  present  identity. 
Under  both  dispensations,  the  church  worships  and 
serves  the  same  God,  not  a  similar  God  ;  obeys  the 
same  moral  law,  not  a  similar  one  ;  rejoices  in  the 
same,  not  a  similar,  Gospel.  It  has  the  identity  of 
one  family  receiving  its  blessings  through  the  same 
covenant.  It  has  the  identity  of  a  tree  and  its 
branches,  the  identity  of  a  house  repaired  and  en- 
larged, the  identity  of  membership — the  apostles  and 
earlier  disciples  being  the  connecting  link  between 
the  two  dispensations. 

Mr.  Carson  and  others,  who  deny  the  identity  of 
the  church  under  the  two  dispensations,  regard  the 
Jewish  church  as  a  type  of  the  Christian  church. 
Carson  says:  "  The  church  of  Israel  was  the  type 
of  the  church  of  the  New  Testament,  containing,  no 
doubt,  the  body  of  the  people  of  God  at  that  time 

*  Lex.  Debate,  p.  333. 


IXFAXT  BAPTISM.  211 

on  the  earth,  and  in  this  point  of  view,  may  be 
called  the  same.  Both  are  called  the  kingdom  of 
God,  and  both  were  such,  but  in  a  different  sense. 
The  one  was  a  kingdom  of  this  world  ;  the  other  is  a 
kingdom  not  of  this  world."  Again :  "  As  the 
church  of  Israel  was  the  church  of  God,  typical  of 
his  true  church,  and  containing,  in  every  successive 
age,  a  remnant  of  the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham, 
according  to  the  election  of  grace,  the  New  Testa- 
ment church  is  spoken  of  in  the  Old,  under  the 
figure  of  Israel,  Zion,"  etc.*  Truly,  Here  are  some 
strange  things.  In  the  first  place,  we  are  told,  that 
God  has,  or  has  had,  two  kingdoms — one  of  this 
world,  and  the  other  not,  and  that  yet  they  are,  in  a 
sense,  the  same  kingdom  !  And  then  we  are  told  of 
the  church  of  God  and  the  true  church  of  God  ; 
the  "  church"  being  typical  of  the  "  true  church." 
So  that  there  have  been  two  churches  of  God,  one 
which  was  a  true  church,  and  the  other  not !  We 
read  here  of  a  church  of  God  which  was  "  of  this 
world  ; "  and  yet  it  had  a  holy  temple  service,  priests 
and  prophets  to  conduct  the  worship  of  God,  and  to 
teach  his  truth  ;  and  in  it,  multitudes  were  trained 
for  heaven  !  But  what  a  confusion  of  ideas.  Abra- 
is  the  father  of  the  Christian  church ;  and  yet  he 
and  a  large  portion  of  his  spiritual  seed  were  typical 
of  the  rest ! — one  part  of  the  family  typical  of  the 

*  On  Bap.,  pp.  374,  375. 


212  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

other  !  The  good  olive  tree  is  typical  of  the  branches 
grafted  into  it!  The  typical  church  is  called  upon 
to  lengthen  her  cords,  and  strengthen  her  stakes,  that 
she  may  receive  the  true  church ! 

Since,  then,  the  church  remains  the  same  under 
the  two  dispensations,  it  is  clear  that  in  our  inquiries 
respecting  the  law  of  membership,  we  are  not  to 
begin  with  the  New  Testament.  The  ordinance  of 
baptism,  it  is  true,  is  a  New  Testament  ordinance  ; 
but  since  it  is  an  initiatory  rite,  to  be  administered 
to  all  who  are  entitled  to  a  place  in  the  visible  church, 
the  great  question  is — who  or  what  characters  are 
entitled  to  membership  ?  Baptism  was  instituted  by 
Jesus  Christ,  after  his  resurrection  ;  but  it  was  in- 
stituted for  a  church  which  had  long  been  in  exist- 
ence, and  which  was  now  to  be  placed  in  new  circum- 
stances, and  to  commence  a  great  work  extending  to 
all  nations.     It,  therefore,  required  new  ordinances. 

Two  questions,  then,  claim  attention,  viz  :  1st. 
What  was  the  law  of  membership  before  the  death  of 
Christ  ?  2d.  Did  Christ  and  his  apostles,  in  intro- 
ducing the  New  Dispensation,  make  any  such  change 
in  that  law,  as  would  exclude  the  children  of  believers 
from  the  place  they  had  hitherto  occupied  ?  These 
questions  we  now  proceed  to  discuss. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  213 


CHAPTER  III, 


That  professed  believers  and  their  children  were 
placed,  by  the  express  command  of  God,  in  the 
Abrahamic  church,  cannot  be  questioned.  Before 
the  call  of  Abraham,  the  church  of  God  had  existed 
in  the  patriarchal  form.  Every  pious  family  was  a 
little  church,  of  which  the  father  was  the  officiating 
priest.  By  him  the  morning  and  evening  sacrifices 
were  offered  ;  and  he  led  the  family  devotions.  Thus, 
we  find,  that  Abraham,  wherever  he  spent  a  night, 
built  an  altar,  and  called  upon  the  name  of  the 
Lord.  And  as  every  pious  family  was  a  little  church, 
so  were  the  children  members  of  that  church,  trained 
by  the  father  for  God's  service.  In  some  instances, 
men,  celebrated  for  their  wisdom  and  piety,  became 
to  some  extent  public  instructors  and  priests  of  God. 
Such  was  Melchisedek.  But  the  time  came,  when 
God  saw  it  best  to  begin  to  gather  his  people  into 
one  body.  For  this  purpose,  he  entered  into  a  cove- 
nant with  Abraham,  and  appointed  circumcision  as 
the  seal  of  that  covenant.  This  became  thencefor- 
ward the  ordinance  which  distinguished  those  in  cove- 
nant with  God  from  the  world.  It  was  administered 
to  Abraham  and  to  all  the  males  of  his  household, 
who  were  afterwards  called  God's  people.  "  For 
thus  saith  the  Lord  God,  My  people  went  down 
aforetime  into  Egypt  to  sojourn  there ;  and  the 
19 


214  EST  ANT  BAPTISM. 

Assyrian  oppressed  thern  without  cause."  *  And  to 
Pharoah,  Moses  said — "  Thus  saith  the  Lord  God  of 
the  Hebrews,  Let  my  people  go,  that  they  may  serve 
me."f 

Here  we  find  a  people  called  out  of  the  world,  for 
the  service  of  God,  with  ordinances  of  divine  ap- 
pointment, and  an  initiatory  rite.  This  is  an  organ- 
ized church  ;  and,  as  I  think  I  have  proved,  it  is 
identical  with  the  Christian  church.  Into  this  church, 
God  did,  by  positive  law,  put  professed  believers  and 
their  children.  Abraham  was  circumcised,  and  so 
was  his  infant  sen  Isaac.  Henceforth,  circumcision 
was  to  be  administered  to  all  the  male  children  of 
professed  believers,  on  the  eighth  day  after  their 
birth.  Parents  and  children  occupied  their  places 
together  in  the  church,  until  the  death  of  Christ. 
When,  we  ask  our  Baptist  friends,  were  the  children 
of  believers  excluded  ? 

But  it  is  objected,  that  baptism  has  not  taken  the 
place  of  circumcision  ;  and  it  has  been  thought,  that 
by  proving  this  objection,  a  triumph  would  be  gained 
over  Pedo-baptism.     I  answer  : 

1st.  It  is  a  matter  of  no  importance,  so  far  as  the 
baptism  of  infants  is  concerned,  whether  baptism  has 
taken  the  place  of  circumcision,  or  not.  It  cannot 
be  denied,  that  baptism  is  an  initiatory  rite,  and 
must  be  administered  to  all  who  have  the  right  to 

*  Isaiah,  52 :  4.  f  Exodus,  9  :  1. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  215 

membership  in  the  church;  and,  therefore,  when  I 
establish  the  right  of  the  children  of  believers  to  be 
in  the  church,  their  right  to  baptism,  the  initiatory 
ordinance,  follows  of  necessity. 

2d.  But  it  is  a  truth,  clear  as  light,  that  baptism 
has  taken  the  place  of  circumcision ;  and  the  labored 
efforts  which  have  been  made  to  disprove  it,  only 
expose  the  weakness  of  the  opposite  doctrine,  and 
exhibit  the  strength  of  the  doctrine  of  infant  bap- 
tism. What  do  we  mean  by  saying,  that  baptism 
has  taken  the  place  of  circumcision  ?  We  mean 
simply,  that  it  answers  the  same  purposes  in  the 
church,  under  the  New  Dispensation,  which  circum- 
cision answered  under  the  Old.  Those  purposes  were 
the  following  : 

In  the  first  place,  circumcision  was  the  door  into 
the  Abrahamic  church.  No  Gentile  could  become  a 
member  of  the  Abrahamic  church,  without  submit- 
ting to  circumcision  ;  and  no  descendant  of  Abraham 
could  be  recognized  as  a  member,  unless  circum- 
cised. "  The  uncircumcised  man-child,  whose  flesh 
of  his  foreskin  is  not  circumcised,  that  soul  shall  be 
cut  off  from  his  people."  *  Precisely  so,  baptism 
is  the  door  into  the  Christian  church.  No  adult  can 
enter  it  without  baptism  ;  and  no  child,  though  born 
of  believing  parents,  can  be  recognized  as  a  member, 
unless  baptized. 

*  Gen.,  17:  14. 


216  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

In  the  second  place,  circumcision  and  baptism 
have  the  same  significance;  and,  therefore,  baptism 
impresses  on  the  mind  the  same  truth  which  circum- 
cision formerly  impressed.  This,  Mr.  Carson,  though 
an  extremely  zealous  Baptist,  acknowledges.  He 
says:  "Circumcision  and  baptism  correspond  in 
meaning.  They  both  relate  to  the  renewal  of  the 
heart."  *  Indeed  the  Scriptures  so  abundantly  teach 
the  identity  of  the  meaning  of  these  two  ordinances, 
that  few  will  dispute  it. 

In  the  third  place,  circumcision  was  the  seal  of  the 
covenant  of  grace  ;  and  so  is  baptism.  Speaking  of 
circumcision,  Rev.  Andrew  Fuller  says  :  "  This  ordi- 
nance ^vas  the  mark  by  which  they  [Abraham  and 
his  seed]  were  distinguished  as  a  people  in  covenant 
with  Jehovah,  and  which  bound  them  by  a  special 
obligation  to  obey  him."  f  And  is  not  the  same 
thing  true  of  baptism?  Is  it  not  the  ordinance 
which  distinguishes  Christians  from  the  world,  as  a 
people  in  covenant  with  God  ?  And  does  it  not  bind 
them  by  a  special  obligation  to  his  service  ?  Does 
it  not  seal  to  the  believer  the  remission  of  sins, 
according  to  God's  gracious  covenant  ? 

It  is,  then,  clear,  that  baptism  answers  the  same 
ends  in  the  church  now,  which  were  answered  by  cir- 
cumcision formerly ;  and  this  is  all  that  is  meant  by 
saying,  it  has  come  in  place  of  circumcision. 

*  On  Baptism,  p.  367.  f  Lect.  on  Gen.  17. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  217 

In  the  Lexington  Debate,  Mr.  Campbell  adduced 
sixteen  arguments  to  prove  that  baptism  has  not 
come  in  the  place  of  circumcision  ;  and  although  not 
at  all  necessary  to  the  defence  of  infant  baptism, 
a  brief  notice  of  these  arguments  may  do  good. 

1st.  The  first  argument  is,  that  "  males  only 
were  the  subjects  of  circumcision."  Jlnswer.  Fe- 
males, both  adults  and  infants,  entered  the  Jewish 
church  in  connection  with  males ;  therefore,  the 
initiatory  rite  was  administered  only  to  the  latter. 
But  under  the  New  Dispensation,  it  constantly  hap- 
pens, that  females  enter  the  church  alone;  there- 
fore, the  initiatory  rite  is  administered  to  them  also. 
Under  both  Dispensations,  infant  females  entered 
the  church  in  the  same  manner  as  adult  females. 
But  will  any  one  seriously  pretend,  that  the  more1 
extensive  application  of  baptism  is  inconsistent  with 
its  taking  the  place  of  circumcision  ? 

The  second  argument  is,  that  "  adults  circumcised 
themselves ; 95  and  the  fourth,  which  involves  the 
same  principle,  is,  that  "infants  were  circumcised 
by  either  parent."  Both  these  arguments  proceed 
upon  the  assumption,  that  one  ordinance  cannot  take 
the  place  of  another,  unless  the  administrators  are 
the  same.  But  this  is  not  true.  Before  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  Levitical  priesthood  at  Sinai,  the  bloody 
sacrifices  were  offered  by  the  father  of  each  family. 
After  that  time,  this  duty  was  confined  to  the  priests. 
But  no  one  has  ventured  to  contend,  that  this  change 
19* 


218  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

of  administrators  made  any  change  in  the  nature  of 
the  sacrifices.  If,  then,  a  change  of  administrators 
makes  no  change  in  the  nature  of  an  ordinance,  how 
can  such  a  change  prevent  one  ordinance  from  taking 
the  place  of  another?  Moreover,  this  argument 
comes  very  inconsistently  from  Mr.  Campbell,  who 
teaches,  that  "  there  is  no  law  in  the  Christian 
Scriptures  authorizing  any  one  class  of  citizens  in 
the  Christian  kingdom  to  immerse,  to  the  exclusion 
of  any  other  class  of  citizens ; "  and  that  even 
females  may  administer  baptism.* 

The  third  argument  is,  that  "  infant  males  were 
to  be  circumcised  the  eighth  day."  Answer.  The 
time  of  administration  was  not  an  essential  point ; 
for  circumcision  was  postponed  for  forty  years,  dur- 
ing the  passage  of  the  Jews  through  the  wilderness. t 
How,  then,  can  it  be  pretended,  that  one  ordinance 
cannot  take  the  place  ol  another,  unless  the  time  of 
administration  be  precisely  the  same  ?  May  not  the 
changed  circumstances  of  the  church  justify  a  change 
in  the  time  of  administering  ordinances  ? 

The  fifth  argument  is,  that  "  a  Jew's  property  in 
a  man  or  child,  constrained  his  circumcision.  Abra- 
ham's servants,  adults  and  all,  because  his  prop- 
erty, were  circumcised."  It  is  true,  Abraham's 
servants  were  circumcised  ;  but  it  cannot  be  proved 

*  Millen.  Harb.,  v.  3,  pp.  236,  237. 
\  Joshua,  5th  ch. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  219 

that  he  had  a  single  adult  servant,  who  did  not  pro- 
fess to  be  a  worshipper  of  the  true  God  ;  nor  is  there 
the  slightest  evidence,  that  any  adult  servant  of  the 
Jews  was  circumcised,  until  he  professed  faith.  The 
law  of  Moses  says  :  "  But  every  man's  servant  that 
is  bought  for  money,  when  thou  hast  circumcised 
him,  then  shall  he  eat  thereof."  *  (7.  e.,  of  the 
Passover. )  But  it  does  not  require  that  every  such 
servant  shall  be  circumcised.  "  It  does  not  appear," 
says  Dr.  Scott,  "  that  any  servant  or  stranger  was 
compelled  to  be  circumcised ;  but,  till  he  was  circum- 
cised, he  must  not  be  allowed  to  eat  the  Passover." 
There  is  something  extremely  revolting  in  the  idea, 
so  much  urged  by  anti-pedo-baptists,  of  administer- 
ing the  seal  of  God's  covenant  to  servants,  simply  as 
property.  "What  could  be  the  meaning  or  design  of 
such  administration  ?  Why  not  administer  religious 
ordinances  to  other  property?  The  idea  is  profane  ; 
and  Mr.  Carson  carries  it  out  to  the  extreme,  when 
he  says:  "  Abraham  would  have  been  justified  in 
circumcising  his  slaves,  had  every  one  of  them  sub- 
mitted with  reluctance,  or  had  endeavored  to  re- 
sist." f  To  such  errors  does  opposition  to  infant 
baptism  drive  men. 

The  sixth  argument  is,  that  "  circumcision  was 
not  the  door  into  any  church  or  religious  institution. 
It  was  no  initiatory  rite  into  any  moral  institution. 

#  Exod.,  12 :  44.  f  Ou  Bap.,  p.  561. 


220  IXFAXT  BAPTISM. 

The  Ishmaelites  and  Edomites,  and  many  other  na- 
tions by  Keturah,  were  circumcised.  Into  what 
church  did  they  enter  ?  The  Jews  were  members  of 
the  politico -ecclesiastical  church  by  natural  birth. 
Circumcision  was  no  initiatory  rite  or  door  to  them." 
Here  are  certainly  some  strange  assertions.  The 
Ishmaelites  and  Edomites  were  apostates  from  the 
religion  of  Abraham.  And  will  it  be  pretended,  that 
the  abuse  of  circumcision  by  apostates,  proves  that 
it  was  not  an  initiatory  rite  ?  Why  not  argue,  that 
since  Mormons  practice  baptism,  and  yet  do  not 
enter  into  the  Christian  church,  baptism  cannot  be 
an  initiatory  rite  ?  Such  arguments  are  almost  too 
weak  to  admit  of  refutation.  But  circumcision,  we 
are  told,  could  not  be  an  initiatory  rite  to  the  Jew, 
because  he  was  a  member  of  the  church  by  birth  ; 
and  yet  the  Scriptures  declare  plainly,  that  the  uncir- 
cumcised  man-child  should  not  be  a  member  of  that 
church.*  Desperate,  indeed,  must  be  the  cause 
which  drives  its  advocates  to  such  assertions.  When 
a  Gentile  desired  to  enter  the  Jewish  church,  and 
partake  of  the  passover,  he  was  directed  to  be  cir- 
cumcised, f  Beyond  all  controversy,  circumcision 
was  an  initiatory  rite. 

The  seventh  argument  is,  that  "  the  qualification 
for  circumcision  wasyfesA."  This  assertion  is  utterly 
untrue.     If  it   had   been   so,  how  could   a   Gentile 

*  Gen.,  17:  14.  f  Exod.,  12:  48. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  221 

proselyte  have  been  circumcised  ?  What  flesh,  quali- 
fication had  he  ?  The  Gentile  was  not  a  descendant 
of  Abraham  according  to  the  flesh.  What,  then, 
was  the  qualification  necessary  to  admit  a  Gentile  to 
circumcision  ?  There  were  amongst  the  Jews  two 
classes  of  proselytes,  viz  :  the  proselytes  of  the  gate 
and  the  proselytes  of  righteousness.  These  last  re- 
ceived circumcision  on  professing  their  faith.  The 
Jews,  in  the  clays  of  Paul,  agreed  with  the  view 
maintained  by  Mr.  Campbell — that  the  qualification 
for  circumcision  was  flesh ;  but  he  was  careful  to 
correct  the  mischievous  error.  He  said  :  "  For  cir- 
cumcision verily  profiteth,  if  thou  keep  the  law  :  but 
if  thou  be  a  breaker  of  the  law,  thy  circumcision 
is  made  uncircumcision.  For  he  is  not  a  Jew  which 
is  one  outwardly ;  neither  is  that  circumcision,  which 
is  outward  in  the  flesh :  but  he  is  a  Jew  which  is  one 
inwardly ;  and  circumcision  is  that  of  the  heart, 
in  the  spirit,  and  not  in  the  letter,  whose  praise  is 
not  of  men,  but  of  God."  *  How  could  the  apostle 
more  strongly  assert,  that  circumcision  requires  true 
piety,  and  is  useless  without  it  ?  How  can  any  man 
keep  the  law  of  God  without  piety  ? 

The  eighth  argument  is,  that  "  circumcision  was 
not  a  dedicatory  rite."  Circumcision  was  the  seal  of 
a  covenant  which  required  the  circumcised  person  to 
serve   God,  and  which  required  the  parents  of  cir- 

*  Rom.,  2  :  25-29. 


222  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

cumcised  children  to  train  them  up  for  that  service. 
In  this  sense,  it  was  a  dedicatory  rite,  and  in  this 
sense  only  is  baptism  a  dedicatory  rite. 

The  ninth  argument  is,  that  "  circumcision,  re- 
quiring no  moral  qualification,  communicated  no 
spiritual  blessings."  But  circumcision,  as  we  have 
just  proved,  did  require  moral  qualification  ;  and  it 
did  communicate  spiritual  blessings,  just  so  far  as  an 
external  ordinance  ever  communicates  such  blessings. 
For  Paul  says,  in  the  passage  just  quoted,  "  Cir- 
cumcision verily  profiteth,  if  thou  keep  the  law  ;  " 
and  in  the  following  chapter,  in  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion, "What  profit  is  thereof  circumcision?" — he 
answers,  "  Much  every  way."  *  Circumcision  sealed 
the  covenant  which  contains  the  precious  promise — 
"  to  be  a  God  to  thee  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee."  t 
Those  who  kept  that  covenant  received  abundant 
spiritual  blessings.  The  same,  precisely,  is  true  of 
baptism. 

The  tenth  argument  is,  that  "  idiots  were  circum- 
cised." This  is  a  mere  quibble.  The  law  of  cir- 
cumcision says  not  a  word  about  idiots.  But  why 
should  not  a  Christian  parent  have  an  idiotic  child 
baptized?  It  has  a  soul,  and  must  be  saved  by  the 
blood  of  Christ.  Why  should  not  the  afflicted  parents 
place  upon  it  the  seal  of  God's  covenant,  and  plead 
his  promise  ? 

*Rom.,  3:  1,2.  t  Gen.,  17:  7. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  223 

The  eleventh  argument  is,  that  circumcision  "was 
a  visible  appreciable  mark,  as  all  signs  and  seals  are. 
Is  sprinkling  so,  or  any  use  of  water  ?  "  The  argu- 
ment is,  that  circumcision  was  a  sign  and  seal ;  and 
baptism  cannot  take  the  place  or*  circumcision,  be- 
cause it  is  not  "  a  visible,  appreciable  mark,  as  all 
signs  and  seals  are."  And  yet,  in  his  late  book  on 
baptism,  Mr.  Campbell  uses  the  following  language  : 
"  Circumcision  is  said  to  have  been,  in  one  case  at 
least,  a  sign  and  a  seal.  Baptism,  in  the  same 
sense,  and  in  a  similar  case,  is  also  both  a  sign  and  a 
seal,"  etc.  Again,  "  Baptism,  according  to  the 
apostolic  church,  is  both  '  a  sign'  and  '  a  seal"*  of 
remission  of  all  former  sins."  *  Is  it  not  strange, 
that  such  a  man  should  so  flatly  contradict  himself 
on  such  a  subject  ?  But  the  argument  now  is  all  on 
our  side.  Baptism,  said  Mr.  Campbell,  cannot  take 
the  place  of  circumcision,  because  it  is  not  "  a  visi- 
ble, appreciable  mark,"  and,  therefore,  not  a  sign 
and  seal,  as  was  circumcision.  I  answer,  baptism 
has  taken  the  place  oi  circumcision,  because  it  is,  as 
Mr.  C.  confesses  and  maintains,  both  a  sign  and  a 
seal,  "  in  the  same  sense !  " 

The  twelfth  argument  is,  that  "  circumcision  was 
binding  on  parents,  not  on  children.  The  com- 
mandment was,  '  Circumcise  your  children.'  But 
the  Christian  word   is,  'Be   baptized   every  one  of 

*  p.  272. 


224  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

you.5 "  Answer.  The  command  to  adults  was, 
u  Be  circumcised  ;"  and  so  is  the  command  to  adults, 
"  Be  baptized.''  But  it  was  the  duty  of  parents  to 
have  their  children  circumcised ;  and  it  was  the  duty 
of  circumcised  children,  when  old  enough  to  under- 
stand their  obligations,  to  keep  the  covenant  of  the 
Lord,  engaging  in  his  service.  The  same  is  true 
of  baptism.  Therefore,  it  has  taken  the  place  of  cir- 
cumcision. 

The  thirteenth  argument  is,  that  "  the  right  to 
circumcision  in  no  case  depended  upon  the  faith,  the 
piety,  or  the  morality  cf  parents.  The  infant  of 
the  most  impious  Jew  had  just  as  good  a  right  to 
circumcision  as  the  son  of  Abraham,  David  or  Dan- 
iel." This  is  a  bold  assertion;  but  it  is  not  true. 
Not  a  passage  in  the  Bible  can  be  found  to  sustain  it. 
God  commanded  Jewish  parents  to  keep  his  cove- 
nant ;  and  he  commanded  them  to  place  the  seal  o£ 
that  covenant  upon  their  children ;  but  he  did  not 
intimate  that  apostates  had  the  same  rights  as  the 
truly  pious. 

The  fourteenth  argument  is,  that  "  circumcision 
guarantied  certain  temporal  blessings  to  the  Jews. 
Query — what  temporal  blessings  does  baptism  secure 
to  infants  ?  "  Answer.  Circumcision  did  not  guar- 
antee any  special  temporal  blessings.  The  Gentile 
proselyte,  though  circumcised,  had  no  inheritance 
amongst  the  Jews.  A  Jew  had  certain  temporal 
blessings,  not  simply  because  circumcised.,  but  be- 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  225 

cause  lie  belonged  to  one  of  the  twelve  tribes.  The 
Gospel  promises  to  the  Christian  the  same  temporal 
blessings  which  circumcision  promised  to  the  prose- 
lyte, viz  :  the  providential  care  of  God. 

The  fifteenth  argument  is,  that  circumcision  "was 
not  to  be  performed  into  the  name  of  any  being 
whatever,  neither  in  heaven  nor  on  earth."  Answer. 
Circumcision  was  performed  by  the  command,  and, 
therefore,  in  the  name  of  the  true  God.  Whether 
precisely  the  same  words  were  spoken  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  it,  as  in  the  administration  of  baptism,  is 
of  no  importance  ;  for  certainly  no  man  in  his  senses 
will  maintain  that  an  ordinance  cannot  take  the  place 
of  another,  unless  the  very  same  words  are  repeated 
in  the  administration  of  it. 

The  sixteenth  argument  is,  that  u  the  subject  of 
circumcision,  was  a  debtor  to  keep  the  law  of  Moses 
in  all  its  institutions.  Query— Are  those  infants 
baptized,  debtors  to  keep  all  the  Jewish  ordinances? 
If  not,  how  does  baptism  fill  the  place  of  circum- 
cision ? "  Answer.  The  circumcised  person  was 
bound  to  observe  all  the  existing  laws  and  ordi- 
nances of  God,  not  to  observe  any  that  had  been 
repealed ;  and  the  baptized  person  is  bound  to  ob- 
serve all  existing  laws  and  ordinances,  but  not  those 
that  have  been  repealed.  How  perfectly  absurd  to 
say,  that  one  ordinance  cannot  be  substituted  for 
another,  unless  it  require  the  observance  of  repealed 


20 


226  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

I  have  now  done  a  work  of  supererogation,  so  far 
as  infant  baptism  is  concerned.  For  when  I  have 
proved  the  right  of  children  to  membership  in  the 
church,  as  before  remarked,  their  right  to  baptism 
follows  necessarily,  whether  it  came  in  the  place  of 
circumcision  or  not.  But  I  have  given  proof,  which 
seems  to  me  conclusive,  that  baptism  has  taken  the 
place  of  circumcision  ;  and  a  brief  examination  of 
Mr.  Campbell's  sixteen  arguments  has  served  fully 
to  expose  their  utter  weakness.  Each  argument  is 
founded  upon  a  false  assertion,  or  is  a  mere  quibble. 

But  let  me  now  further  say,  that  the  whole  sixteen 
arguments  rest  upon  a  false  and  flimsy  assumption. 
The  assumption  is,  that  if  one  ordinance  take  the 
place  of  another,  it  must  answer  in  every  particular 
to  the  other.  This  would  be  true,  if  this  were  the 
only  change  made.  For  instance,  if  baptism  had 
been  substituted  for  circumcision  during  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  Old  Dispensation,  it  must  have 
conformed,  in  all  respects,  to  the  law  of  circum- 
cision. But  when  a  New  Dispensation  takes  place 
of  the  Old,  and  all  the  ordinances  are  changed  to 
prepare  the  church  for  new  circumstaces  and  new 
labors,  then  baptism  must  conform  to  this  new  state 
of  things,  not  to  that  which  has  passed  away.  It  is 
not  simply  true,  that  baptism  has  taken  the  place  of 
circumcision,  but  that  all  the  ordinances  of  the  Old 
Dispensation  have  been  supplanted  by  those  of  the 
New.     Nothing,  certainly,  but  the  dire  necessities  of 


IXFANT  BAPTISM.  227 

anti-pedo-baptism  could  have  induced  its  advocates 
to  offer  such  arguments  as  we  have  just  been  con- 
sidering. 


CHAPTER  IY. 

Two  most  important  points,  I  think,  are  fully 
established  by  the  preceding  discussion,  viz  :  1st. 
That  the  Christian  church  is  identical  with  the  Abra- 
hamic  ;  2d.  That  the  law  of  membership  in  this 
church  did  embrace  believers  and  their  children,  from 
the  ratification  of  the  covenant  with  Abraham  to  the 
crucifixion  of  Christ.  Or,  in  other  words,  the  cove- 
nant with  Abraham,  upon  which  the  church  was 
organized,  embraced  believers  and  their  children ; 
and,  therefore,  both  received  the  same  initiatory  rite, 
the  same  seal. 

Now,  it  devolves  upon  the  opposers  of  infant  bap- 
tism to  prove,  that  Christ  or  his  apostles  did  so 
change  the  covenant  and  the  law  of  membership,  as 
to  exclude  from  the  church  the  children  of  believers. 
For  unless  such  a  change  was  made,  they  are  still 
embraced  in  the  covenant,  and  in  the  law  of  mem- 
bership, and,  consequently,  have  the  right  to  the 
initiatory  ordinance.  We  prove,  that  when  the  church 
was  organized,  God  did  put  believers  and  their  chil- 
dren into  it,  and  that  they  both  remained  together, 


228  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

till  the  advent  of  Christ.  Then  let  those  who  pro- 
pose henceforth  to  exclude  children,  produce  Divine 
authority  for  so  doing.  The  burden  of  proof  rests 
upon  them. 

1.  The  first  proof  on  which  they  rely,  is  the  com- 
mission given  by  our  Lord  to  the  apostles  :  "  Go  ye 
therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost ;  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things 
whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you  :  and,  lo,  I  am 
with  you  alway,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world. 
Amen."  *  So  confident  was  Mr.  Carson  that  this 
commission  excludes  infants  from  baptism,  that  he 
said,  "I  am  willing  to  hang  the  whole  controversy 
on  this  passage  ;  "  and  he  adds,  u  If  I  had  not 
another  passage  in  the  word  of  God,  I  will  engage  to 
refute  my  opponents  from  the  words  of  this  commis- 
sion alone."  t  Mr.  Campbell  says:  "  Now,  I  will 
stake  the  whole  cause  for  which  I  now  plead,  upon 
a  fair,  grammatical,  and  logical  construction  of  this 
single  document."  J  Let  us  look  carefully  at  this 
formidable  evidence.  It  presents  several  points  for 
careful  consideration. 

1st.  It  will  be  perceived  at  a  glance,  that  this  com- 
mission says  nothing  about  the  organization  of  a 
new  church.     It  simply  sends  the  apostles  to  prose- 

*  Matt.,  28  :  19,  20.  f  On  Baptism,  p.  278. 

t  On  Baptism,  p.  278. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  229 

lyte  all  nations,  baptizing  and  teaching  them.  It  is 
certainly  remarkable,  if  a  new  church,  on  entirely 
new  principles,  was  to  be  organized,  that  the  com- 
mission gives  no  intimation  of  it. 

2d.  It  is  equally  plain,  that  the  commission  men- 
tions neither  infants  nor  adults.     It  sends  the  apos- 
tles to  "  all  nations.5'     I  am  aware,  that  Mark,  16  : 
15,  16,  is  appealed  to  in  this  connection  ;  but  the 
language  of  Christ,   as  given  by  Mark,   simply  en- 
joins the  duty   of    preaching  the  Gospel,   and  fixes 
the  terms  of  salvation  for  those  capable  of  hearing 
and  understanding  the  Gospel.     "  He  that  believeth 
-and  is  baptized,   shall   be  saved."     Here,   say  our 
opponents,  baptism   is   confined   to   believers.     But 
there  is   another  declaration  in  the  same  sentence, 
viz :   "  but  he  that  believeth  not,  shall  be  damned." 
Why  not  say,  here  salvation  is  confined  to  believers, 
and,  therefore,  infants  and  idiots  cannot  be  saved  ? 
If  the  first  part  of   the   sentence   excludes   infants 
from  baptism,  the  last  part  must  exclude  them  from 
salvation.       "Certainly,"    says   Mr.    Carson,    u  if 
there  were  no  way  of   saving   children  but  by  the 
Gospel,   this    conclusion  would  be  inevitable.     The 
Gospel  saves  none  but  by  faith.     But  the  Gospel  has 
nothing  to   do  with  infants,   nor  have  gospel  ordi- 
nances any  respect  to  them."  *     Whether  the  Gos- 
pel has   anything  to  do  with  infants   or  not,  it  is 


*  Lex.  Debate,  p.  368. 
20* 


230  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

certain  that  the  Author  of  the  Gospel,  when  on  earth, 
had  something  to  clo  with  them.  And  when  he  took 
them  in  his  arms  and  blessed  them,  saying,  "  Of 
such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  he  very  clearly 
intimated,  that  the  plan  of  salvation  had  something 
to  do  with  them.  And  since  the  apostles  of  Christ 
gave  the  same  directions  with  regard  to  the  training 
of  children,  which  Moses  gave,  it  is  quite  probable 
that,  as  in  the  days  of  Moses,  ordinances  had  respect 
to  them,  so  they  may  have  now. 

But  this  is  not  the  point.  A  passage  of  Scrip- 
tore  is  adduced  to  prove,  that  baptism  is  confined  to 
believers,  and  cannot  be  administered  to  infants. 
If,  however,  you  apply  the  passage  to  infants,  so  as 
to  exclude  them  from  baptism,  it  necessarily  excludes 
them  from  salvation.  The  truth  is,  the  language 
of  our  Saviour  has  reference  exclusively  to  per- 
sons capable  of  understanding  the  Gospel;  and, 
therefore,  neither  settles  the  question  of  the  baptism, 
nor  of  the  salvation  of  infants. 

3d.  Our  opponents  agree  with  us,  that  the  first 
word  translated  teach,  in  the  commission,  signifies 
to  disciple,  or  make  disciples.  "  It  is  well  known," 
says  Carson,  "that  the  word  corresponding  to  teach, 
in  the  first  instance  in  which  it  occurs  in  this  passage, 
signifies  to  disciple,  or  make  scholars."  *  The 
duty,  then,  enjoined  upon  the  apostles  was  to  make 

*  On  Baptism,  p.  274. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  231 

disciples  of  all  nations.  We  are  agreed  also, 
that  a  disciple,  in  the  Scripture  sense  of  the  word, 
is  a  true  learner — one  who  loves  to  sit  at  the  feet  o£ 
Jesus  to  learn  heavenly  wisdom,  that  he  may  obey 
the  truth. 

But  now  the  question  arises — How  were  the  apos- 
tles to  make  disciples  of  all  nations  ?  What  means 
were  they  to  employ  ?  The  answer  is,  by  baptizing 
them  and  teaching  them  the  whole  will  of  God. 
Alexander  Campbell  has  contended,  that  u  the  ac- 
tive participle  always,  when  connected  with  the  im- 
perative mood,  expresses  the  manner  in  which  the 
thing  commanded  is  to  be  performed."  And  he 
gives  several  examples,  as  the  following  :  "  Cleanse 
the  room,  washing  it ;  clean  the  floor,  sweeping  it ; 
cultivate  the  field,  ploughing  it  ;  sustain  the  hungry, . 
feeding  them  ;  furnish  the  soldiers,  arming  them  ; 
convert  the  nations,  baptizing  them,  are  exactly  the 
same  forms  of  speech."  *  Whether  this  criticism  of 
Mr.  Campbell  is  correct  or  not,  is  of  no  importance, 
since  the  truth  is  admitted,  that  ministers  of  Christ 
can  make  disciples  only  by  using  the  means  embraced 
in  the  terms  baptizing  and  teaching.  The  duty 
enjoined  in  the  commission  is  to  make  disciples  ;  and 
it  is  certain  they  could  do  this  work  only  by  baptizing 
and  teaching  them.  Whatever  additional  influence 
was  necessary  for  their  conversion,  God  himself  must 
exert. 

*  Chris.  Bap.  p.  630. 


232  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

So  far  all  is  clear.  But  liere  arises  another  ques- 
tion, viz  :  Does  the  commission  require  that  teach 
ing  shall,  in  all  cases,  precede  baptizing  ?  Our 
opponents  affirm ;  we  deny.  It  is  contended,  that 
the  word  {imatheteuo)  translated  teach,  necessarily 
implies  instruction — that  no  one  can  be  called  a 
disciple,  until  he  is  instructed  in  the  first  principles 
of  the  Gospel.  Admit  it.  The  question  is  not 
whether,  in  making  disciples,  it  is  necessary  to  teach, 
or  how  much  instruction  must  be  given.  The  com- 
ioB  requires  two  things  to  be  done,  viz  :  baptiz- 
ing and  teaching  ;  and  the  question  is  as  to  the 
order  in  which  these  duties  are  to  be  performed. 
Does  the  language  of  the  commission  settle  this 
order?  It  does  not.  It  says,  make  disciples  by 
baptizing  and  teaching  ;  but  whether  teaching  must, 
in  all  cases,  be  first  in  order,  it  does  not  say;  this 
question  must  be  settled  by  other  parts  of  the  Bible. 
In  the  case  of  adults,  the  minister  will,  of  course, 
teach  both  before  and  after  baptism.  In  the  case  of 
infants,  he  will  teach  after  baptism.  But  in  both 
cases,  he  will  make  disciples  by  baptizing  and 
teaching  ;  and  this  is  all  the  commission  requires. 

But  let  us  go  further  than  the  language  requires, 
and  admit,  that  the  passage  under  consideration 
refers  exclusively  to  adults,  or  to  persons  capable 
of  understanding  the  Gospel ;  yet  if  we  find,  in  the 
word  of  God,  evidence  that  the  children  of  believers 
are  to  be  baptized,  the  language  here  used  cannot  be 


IKFANT  BAPTISM.  233 

so  interpreted,  as  to  exclude  them.  For  the  lan- 
guage of  the  commission  does  not  express  the  whole 
of  the  duties  of  the  ministry.  The  utmost  that  can 
be  maintained  from  the  commission  is,  that,  taken 
by  itself,  it  does  not  authorize  the  baptism  of 
infants.  But  the  command  to  baptize  adult  believers, 
cannot  exclude  infants.  We  are  seeking  now  for  a 
law  excluding  the  children  of  believers  from  the 
place  in  the  church,  which  they  had,  for  centuries, 
occupied.  Anti-peclo-baptists  profess  to  find  such  a 
law  in  the  passage  under  consideration ;  but  on  ex- 
amination, we  discover  that,  even  admitting  more 
than  the  language  proves,  it  simply  sends  the  apos- 
tles among  all  nations  to  baptize  those  who  profess 
conversion,  but  says  nothing  directly  or  indirectly 
concerning  infants.  And  is  this  a  law  excluding  them 
from  the  church  ?     It  cannot  be. 

But  it  is  affirmed,  that  the  law  of  membership 
has  been  changed — that  flesh  was  the  sole  qualifica- 
tion for  membership  in  the  Abrahamic  church ;  whilst 
faith  is  the  qualification  in  the  Christian  church.  It 
is  not  true,  that  flesh  was  the  sole  qualification  for 
membership  in  the  Abrahamic  church.  So  far  from 
it,  that  it  was  not  a  necessary  qualification  at  all. 
Proselytes  from  the  Gentiles  were  constantly  received 
on  the  sole  ground  of  faith.  They  were  not  descend- 
ants of  Abraham,  but,  professing  the  faith  of  Abra- 
ham and  Moses,  they  were  admitted  to  full  mem- 
bership.    I  have  said,  flesh  or  natural  descent  from 


234  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

Abraham,  was  not  a  necessary  qualification.  I  go 
further,  and  affirm,  that  it  was  not  a  qualification  at 
all.  The  Ishmaelites  and  Edomites  were  natural 
descendants  of  Abraham ;  they  had,  therefore,  the 
flesh  qualification  ;  yet  they  were  not  members  of  the 
Abrahamic  church,  or  even  of  the  commonwealth  of 
Israel.  Besides,  a  Jew  migrht  forfeit  his  right  to 
membership  in  the  church  by  improper  conduct, 
though  he  had  the  flesh  qualification.  This  is  evi- 
dently what  is  meant  generally  by  the  expression, 
"  cut  off  from  his  people."  Thus,  the  man  who  ate 
leavened  bread  during  the  festival  of  the  Passover, 
was  to  be  "  cut  off  from  Israel."*  A  man  who, 
after  touching  an  unclean  thing,  should  eat  of  the 
flesh  of  a  peace-offering,  was  to  suffer  in  like  man- 
ner.! I  am  aware  that  some  commentators  have 
regarded  this  expression  as  the  denunciation  of  some 
awful  judgment  of  God ;  but  it  seems  to  me  clear, 
that  they  have  not  rightly  interpreted  it.  The  sins 
to  which  this  punishment  is  annexed,  are  not  gene- 
rally of  a  character  so  heinous,  as  to  justify  this 
interpretation.  I  agree,  therefore,  with  Dr.  Clarke, 
that  the  punishment  "  appears  to  have  been  nearly 
the  same  with  excommunication  among  Christians." 
Certain  it  is,  that  flesh  was  not  the  qualification 
for  membership  in  the  Abrahamic  church.  If  it  had 
been,  how  could  the  Jews  have  been  broken  off  from 

*Exod.;  12:  15.  f  Levit.,7:  21 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  235 

the  good  olive  tree,  and  rejected,  because  of  un- 
belief? If  faith  was  not  required,  how  could 
unbelief  exclude  them?  Even  in  the  case  of  infants, 
flesh  was  not  the  qualification,  but  the  professed 
faith  of  the  parent.  If  Jewish  parents  became 
pagan  idolaters,  their  children,  -though  the  flesh 
qualification  continued  unaltered,  would  have  had  no 
right  to  membership  ;  and  the  profession  of  faith  by 
Gentile  parents,  though  there  was  no  flesh  qualifica- 
tion, placed  their  children,  so  far  as  the  church  was 
concerned,  upon  as  perfect  equality  with  the  children 
of  Jews. 

The  truth  is,  anti-pedo -baptists  have  utterly  failed 
to  find  a  law  for  excluding  the  children  of  believers 
from  the  visible  church.  They,  therefore,  have  the 
right  to  remain  where  God  originally  placed  them, 
and  there  to  be  trained  for  the  service  of  God  and 
for  heaven.  They,  consequently,  are  entitled  to  the 
initiatory  rite. 

But  we  take  stronger  ground.  We  undertake  to 
find,  in  the  New  Testament,  authority  for  baptizing 
the  infants  of  believers.  "  And  they  brought  unto 
him  also  infants,  that  he  would  touch  them:  but 
when  his  disciples  saw  it,  they  rebuked  them.  But 
Jesus  called  them  unto  him,  and  said,  Suffer  little 
children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not :  for 
of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God."  This  interesting 
occurrence  is  related  by  three  of  the  evangelists  in 


236  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

very  nearly  the  same  language.*  In  examining  the 
language  of  our  Saviour,  the  first  question  that 
arises,  is  concerning  the  "  kingdom  of  heaven.55 
Here,  happily,  both  parties  are  agreed.  Anti-pedo- 
baptists  admit  that  "  the  kingdom  of  heaven"  here 
means  the  Gospel  church.  The  whole  controversy, 
then,  turns  upon  the  words  of  such,  (Joiautou.) 
Does  this  expression  mean,  that  the  church  of  Christ 
should  be  constituted  of  persons  who  have  spiritual 
dispositions  resembling  or  analogous  to  the  disposi- 
tions of  little  children  ?  Or  does  it  mean  that  the 
privileges  of  the  church  of  Christ  belong  to  children 
such  as  these  ?  Dr.  Gill  explains  it  as  follows : 
"  And  it  is  as  if  our  Lord  should  say,  don't  drive 
away  these  children  from  my  person  and  presence ; 
they  are  lively  emblems  of  the  proper  subjects  of  a 
Gospel  church-state,  and  of  such  that  shall  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  heaven :  by  these,  I  may  in- 
struct and  point  out  to  you,  what  converted  persons 
should  be,  who  have  a  place  in  my  church  below,  and 
expect  to  enter  into  my  kingdom  and  glory  above ; 
they  are,  or  ought  to  be,  like  such  children,  harm- 
less and  inoffensive — free  from  rancor  and  malice," 
etc.  The  same  explanation  is  given  by  Mr.  Carson. 
"  Every  way,"  says  he,  "  in  which  the  words  can  be 
understood,  imports  that  the  heirs  of  the  kingdom 
are  such  as  children — not  that  they  are  children. 

*  Luke,  18 :  15,  16;  Matt.,  19  :  13, 14 ;  Mark,  10 :  13,  14. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  237 

The  term  such  does  not  signify  identity — cannot 
signify  identity — but  likeness."  Again,  "  It  is  the 
temper  of  children  to  which  our  Lord  gives  his 
approbation,  and  the  things  referred  to  are  in  all 
children."  Again,  "  Indeed,  the  dispositions  of 
children  are  not  considered  here  in  reference  to  God, 
but  in  reference  to  men.  Children  believe  their 
parents  implicitly ;  and  they  are  comparatively  un- 
ambitious. But  they  are  no  more  ready  to  believe 
God  than  adults  are."  * 

To  this  explanation  of  our  Saviour's  language 
there  are  insuperable  objections.  Indeed,  the  fact 
that  anti-peclo-baptists  have  felt  compelled  to  resort 
to  it,  in  order  to  defend  their  doctrine,  affords  de- 
cided evidence  against  it.  For,  1st.  The  word  (Joi- 
outos)  translated  such,  uniformly  signifies  same- 
ness of  kind,  not  resemblance.  The  following 
examples  will  enable  the  unlearned  reader  to  decide 
upon  the  meaning  of  the  word,  as  well  as  any  critic 
could:  "  Whom  he  called  together  with  the  work- 
men of  like  occupation,"  (toiauta.')  The  meaning 
evidently  is,  of  the  same  trade.  "  Who  knowing  the 
judgment  of  God,  that  they  which  commit  such 
things,  (toiauta^)  are  worthy  of  death,"  etc.  Here 
such  things  mean  crimes  of  the  same  kind.  "  But 
now  I  have  written  unto  you  not  to  keep  company, 
if  any  man  that  is  called  a  brother  be  a  fornicator, 


*  On  Baptism,  pp.  321,  322,  323. 

21 


238  INFANT  BAPTISM, 

or  covetous,  or  an  idolator,  or  a  railer,  or  a  drunk- 
ard, or  an  extortioner;  wit-li  such  a  one  (toiouto)  no 
not  to  eat."  Here  such  a  one  means  one  of  the  sam 
character.  u  Of  the  which  I  tell  you  before,  as  I 
have  also  told  you  in  time  past,  that  they  "which 
do  such  things  (Joiauta)  shall  not  inherit  the 
kingdom  of  God."  "From  such  (Jon  toioutori) 
withdraw  thyself."  *  In  every  one  of  these  instances, 
the  word  in  dispute  signifies  sameness  of  character 
or  kind,  not  partial  resemblance.  It  has  the  same 
meaning  in  the  following  passages  :  "  And  with  many 
such  (Joiautais)  parables  spake  he  the  word  unto 
them."  "  But  the  hour  cometh,  and  now  is,  when  the 
true  worshippers  shall  worship  the  Father  in  spirit 
and  in  truth:  for  the  Father  seeketh  such  (toiou- 
tous}  to  worship  him."  4e  TVho  having  received 
such  a  charge,  (Joiauten)  thrust  them  into  the  inner 
prison."  "  But  now  ye  rejoice  in  your  boasting  :  all 
such  rejoicing  (Joiauta)  is  evil."  f  In  all  these 
passages,  it  is  perfectly  evident  that  the  word  sig- 

*Acts,  19:  25;  Rom.,  1 :  32;  1  Cor  ,  5 :  11;  Gal.,  5  :  21; 
1  Tim.,  6:  5. 

f  Mark,  4  :  33  ;  John,  4  :  23  ;  Acts,  16  :  24  ;  James,  4  :  16. 
The  reader  may  examine  the  following  passages ;  and  in  all  of 
them,  he  will  find  the  meaning  of  the  word  to  be  sameness  of 
kind  or  character :  Matt.,  9:8;  Mark,  6:2;  John,  9:16: 
Luke,  9  :  9,  and  13  :  2  ;  Heb.,  12  :  3  ;  2  Cor.,  12  :  2,  3,  5  ;  Acts, 
22:  22;  2  Cor.,  2 :  6;  Rom.,  16 :  18 ;  1  Cor.,  16:  16,  18;  2 
Thess.,  3  :  12  ;  Titus,  3  :  11  ;  Acts,  21 :  25  ;  Eph.,  5  :  27 ;  Heb. , 
11 :  14  ;  Acts,  26  :  29  ;  Heb.,  7  :  26,  and  8  :  1. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  239 

nifies,  not  mere  resemblance,  but  sameness  of  kind 
or  character.  Indeed,  this  is  the  uniform  meaning 
of  the  word.  The  only  apparent  exception  in  the 
New  Testament,  is  in  Matt.  18 :  1-5.  "At  the  same 
time  came  the  disciples  unto  Jesus,  saying,  Who  is 
the  greatest  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ?  And  Jesus 
called  a  little  child  unto  him,  and  set  him  in  the 
midst  of  them,  and  said,  Verily,  I  say  unto  yon, 
except  ye  be  converted  and  become  as  little  children, 
ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Whoso 
shall  receive  one  such  little  child  in  my  name  re* 
ceiveth  me."  But  here  the  word  toiouton  {such} 
relates,  not  to  the  little  child,  but  to  the  true  convert 
whom  the  Saviour  had  just  compared  to  a  child. 
Whoever  shall  receive  a  person  of  such  a  character, 
receives  Christ.  So  that  the  word  is  here  used  in  its 
ordinary  sense.  It  is  a  most  significant  fact,  that 
anti-pedo-baptists  have  been  obliged  to  assign  to  this 
word  a  sense  it  rarely,  if  ever,  has,  in  order  to  escape 
the  force  of  the  argument  drawn  from  it  in  favor  of 
infant  baptism.* 

2d.  The   anti-pedo- baptist   interpretation  or    this 


*  "  Toiotjtos,"  says  the  late  Dr.  Woods,  of  Andover  Theo- 
logical Seminary,  "  the  same  as  talis  in  Latin,  properly  sig- 
nifies the  nature  or  quality  of  the  thing  to  which  it  is  applied, 
and  not  the  resemblance  which  something  else  bears  to  it.  Ae- 
cordingty,  the  real  import  of  ton  gar  toiouton  estin  he  basileia 
ton  ourauou,  '  of  3ach  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,'  is  the  same 
as  of  these  and  such  as  these  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  includ- 


240  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

passage  destroys  the  sense  of  our  Saviour's  lan- 
guage, and  makes  him  talk  absurdly.  They  make 
him  say,  "  Suffer  little  children  to  come  to  me, 
because  pious  adults  do,  in  some  respects,  resemble 
them."  Now,  let  it  be  remembered,  that  those  chil- 
dren were  brought  to  Christ,  that  he  might  put  his 
hands  on  them,  and  bless  them.  Can  any  man  bring 
himself  to  believe,  that  the  resemblance  between  little 
children  and  believers,  (confessedly  not  a  moral 
resemblance,  so  far  as  the  children  are  concerned,) 
constitutes  any  reason  why  they  should  be  brought 
to  Christ,  that  he  might  bless  them?  Might  not 
lambs,  or  sheep,  or  doves,  have  been  brought  to 
him  for  the  same  reason?  For  believers  are  called 
Christ's  lambs  and  his  sheep  ;  and  they  are  to  be 
"  harmless  as  doves."  But  why  should  children, 
because  they  are  emblems  of  humility,  be  brought  to 
Jesus  Christ?  "  For,"  as  Whitby  well  remarks, 
"  this  they  are  as  much  when  they  come  not,  as  when 
they  come.''  And  why  should  the  fact,  that  children 
are  emblems  of  humility,  make  it  proper  that  our 
Saviour  should  put  his  hands  upon  them,  and  bless 


ing,  of  course,  the  children  themselves,  as  having  a  right  to  the 
blessings  of  Christ's  Kingdom.  *  *  *  This  appears  to  be 
the  sense  of  toioutos,  except  when  it  is  employed  in  a  peculiar, 
unusual  manner.  Accordingly,  the  phrase,  { of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,'  must  mean  of  such  children  as  these,  the 
very  children  that  were  brought  to  Christ  being  included." 
Lect.  on  Infant  Baptism,  pp.  62,  63. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  241 

them  ?  Is  it  not  evident,  that  the  anti-pedo-baptist 
interpretation  of  this  passage  of  Scripture,  makes 
him  reason  most  absurdly  ?  It  cannot,  therefore,  be 
correct. 

Indeed,  some  of  the  ablest  opponents  of  infant 
baptism  have  felt  this  difficulty,  and  have  attempted 
to  escape  it  in  different  ways.  Dr.  Gill  thought  the 
children  were  not  infants,  but  were  probably  capa- 
ble of  "going  alone;  yea,  of  receiving  instruc- 
tions, of  understanding  the  Scriptures ;  *'  and  he 
added,  "Nor  is  it  probable  that  infants  just  born, 
or  within  a  month,  should  be  had  abroad."  *  But 
unfortunately  for  this  conjecture,  Luke  calls  them 
infants,  (brephe)  ;  and  Mark  says,  "  He  took  them 
up  in  his  arms,  put  his  hands  on  them,  and  blessed 
them."  f  How  could  the  inspired  writers  more 
plainly  tell  us,  that  they  were  babes  ?  The  state- 
ment concerning  the  public  appearance  of  infants 
just  born,  or  within  a  month,  is  a  quibble  which 
shows  how  hardly  the  text  under  examination  presses 
the  opponents  of  infant  baptism.  Who  does  not 
know,  that  infants  are  many  months  old,  before  they 
are  capable  of  understanding  the  Gospel?  "  More- 
over," says  the  Doctor,  "  these  were  such  as  Christ 
called  unto   him.      Luke,    18 :  16."       This   is    an 

#  Commentary  on  Matthew,  19 :  13. 
t  Luke,,  18  :  15  ;  and  Mark,  10  :  16. 


21* 


242  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

entire  "mistake.     Christ  did  not  call  the  children,  but 
he  called  those  who  brought  the  children. 

Dr.  Gill  was  evidently  not  satisfied  with  his  proof, 
that  the  children  were  of  sufiicient  age  to  receive 
instruction.  He,  therefore,  resorts  to  another  con- 
jecture, viz  :  that  "  probably  some  of  those  infants, 
if  not  all  of  them,  were  diseased,  and  brought  to 
be  cured ;  otherwise,  it  is  not  easy  to  conceive  what 
they  should  be  touched  by  him  for."  Kow,  if  the 
Saviour  had  said,  "  Suffer  these  little  children  to 
come  to  me,  that  they  may  be  healed,"  all  would 
have  been  plain.  But  can  any  one  conceive  what  the 
healing  of  these  diseases  had  to  do  with  their  being 
emblems  of  Christian  character  ?  Dr.  Gill  evidently 
felt  that  the  reason  for  their  coming  to  Christ,  which 
his  interpretation  made  him  assign,  was  no  reason  at 
all;  and,  therefore,  he  labored  to  find  other  reason;?, 
such  as  their  diseases  or  their  capability  of  receiving 
..instruction. 
-/•Mr;  Carson  also  felt  the  difficulty  which  pressed 
his  interpretation  of  this  passage.  He  saw  the  ab- 
surdity of  representing  Christ  as  taking  infants  in 
his  arms  and  blessing  them,  just  because  they  were 
emblems  of  humility.  He,  therefore,  says:  "That 
children  are  capable  of  being  brought  to  Christ  and 
blessed  by  him,  is  clearly  established  by  this  pas- 
sage ;  and  in  this  light,  it  is  of  inestimable  value."* 

On  Baptism,  pp.  323,  324. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  243 

Very  true :  and  this  was  a  good  reason  why  those 
children  should  be  brought  to  him  ;  but  it  is  not  the 
reason  which  Mr.  Carson  makes  our  Saviour  assign. 
They  are  capable,  it  is  admitted,  of  being  brought 
to  Christ  and  blessed  by  him.  Then  they  are  capa- 
ble of  enjoying  the  blessings  of  his  kingdom.  In 
the  name  of  reason,  then,  why  should  they  be  ex- 
cluded from  that  kingdom,  as  it  is  organized  in  the 
world  ?  And  if  there  was  propriety  in  our  Saviour's 
laying  his  hands  upon  them,  and  blessing  them, 
though  they  understood  not  what  he  did,  who  will 
venture  to  assert,  that  there  is  impropriety  in  ad- 
ministering to  them  an  ordinance  they  cannot  yet 
comprehend  ? 

It  is  perfectly  clear,  then,  that  the  anti-pedo-bap- 
tist  interpretation  of  our  Lord's  language,  labors 
under  two  insuperable  difficulties.  It  puts  upon  one 
of  the  most  important  words  in  the  passage,  a  sense 
which  it  never  has,  or,  at  least,  is  very  extraordinary  ; 
and  it  makes  the  reason  assigned  why  little  children 
should  be  brought  to  him,  perfectly  absurd.  Our 
interpretation,  on  the  contrary,  is  perfectly  natural 
and  obvious.  Let  little  children  come  to  Christ;  for 
to  them  belong  the  privileges  and  blessings  of  his 
church  and  kingdom. 

But  our  anti-pedo-baptist  friends  are  still  unwilling 
to  give  up  the  argument.  They  say,  after  all,  Christ 
did  not  baptize  those  children.  No  ;  for  Christian 
baptism  was  not  then  instituted;  and  "  the  baptism 


244  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

of  repentance"  was  not  intended  for  infants.  But 
instead  of  intimating  that  they  were  to  be  henceforth 
excluded  from  his  church,  he  did  plainly  declare, 
that  they  were  still  to  occupy  their  place  in  his  visible 
kingdom;  and,  if  so,  all  admit  that  they  are  entitled 
to  the  initiatory  rite.  They  have  the  right  to  be  in 
the  church ;  and,  therefore,  they  must  receive  that 
ordinance  by  which  this  right  is  recognized.  The 
argument  seems  to  be  absolutely  conclusive. 

"  But,"  says  Mr.  Carson,  "  to  argue  that  children 
must  be  baptized,  because  they  may  be  blessed  by 
Jesus,  has  no  color  of  plausibility."  And  he  adds, 
"  The  whole  argument  may  be  reduced  to  a  single 
sentence.  Children  may  be  blessed,  wtthout  being 
baptized,  therefore,  the  blessing  of  the  children 
by  Jesus,  is  no  argument  for  infant  baptism."  * 
It  is  true,  that  the  blessing  of  the  children  by  Jesus 
is  not  an  argument  for  infant  baptism ;  nor  do 
Pedo-baptists  rely  on  any  such  argument.  But  the 
language  of  Christ,  teaching  that  to  such  children 
belong  the  privileges  of  his  church,  does  prove  their 
right  to  membership,  and,  consequently,  their  right 
to  the  initiatory  ordinance. 

' '  But,"  says  Mr.  Carson,  "  let  this  passage  be 
ever  so  finely  wiredrawn,  it  cannot  include  infant 
baptism.  It  applies  to  children  in  general,  and  not 
merely  to  the  children  of  believers."     This  is  a  mis- 

*  On  Baptism,  324. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  245 

take.  Our  Saviour  said,  "  Of  such  is  the  kingdom 
of  heaven."  Those  were  children  of  Jews  who  were 
by  profession  believers  ;  and  it  is  to  such  children 
the  right  of  membership  belongs. 

I  think  I  have  now  examined  and  refuted  every 
argument  and  objection  by  which  anti-pedo-baptists 
have  sought  to  escape  the  force  of  this  most  inter- 
esting passage  of  Scripture  ;  and,  so  far  as  I  am 
capable  of  seeing  the  force  of  a  plain  argument,  it 
appears  to  me  perfectly  satisfactory.  Thus,  we  find, 
in  the  New  Testament,  authority  for  baptizing  the 
children  of  believers. 

The  language  of  Paul,  in  1  Cor.,  7:  14,  has  been 
very  generally  understood  to  authorize  the  baptism  of 
infants,  one  or  both  of  whose  parents  are  professed 
believers.  The  apostle  directs  the  wife  of  an  un- 
believing husband  not  to  separate  from  him.  "For," 
says  he,  "  the  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  by 
the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by  the 
believing  husband  :  else  were  your  children  unclean  ; 
but  now  are  they  holy."  This  passage  has  been  one 
of  great  difficulty  to  anti-pedo-baptists.  It  is  per- 
fectly clear,  that  there  is  a  sense  in  which  the  chil- 
dren of  believers,  and  they  only,  are  clean,  holy. 
Dr.  Gill  understood  these  words  as  expressing  legiti- 
macy and  illegitimacy.  He  thus  paraphrases  the 
declaration:  "  Else  were  your  children  unclean," 
etc.  "  That  is,  if  the  marriage  contracted  between 
them,  in  their   state    of   infidelity,    was   not  valid. 


246  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

and,  since  the  conversion  of  one  of  them,  can  never 
be  thought  to  be  good,  then  the  children  begotten 
and  born,  either  when  both  were  infidels,  or  since 
one  of  thera  was  converted,  must  be  unlawfully 
begotten,  be  base-born,  and  not  a  genuine  legitimate 
offspring ;  and  departure  upon  such  a  footing  would 
be  declaring  to  all  the  world  that  their  children  were 
illegitimate ;  which  would  have  been  a  sad  case  in- 
deed, and  contains  in  it  another  reason  why  they 
ought  to  keep  together ;  whereas,  as  the  apostle  has 
put  it,  the  children  are  holy  in  the  same  sense  as 
their  parents  are  ;  that  they  are  sanctified,  or  law- 
fully espoused  together,  so  the  children  born  of 
them  were,  in  a  civil  and  legal  sense,  holy,  that  is, 
legitimate."  Drs.  Gale  and  Carson  take  the  same 
view.  The  great  objection,  however,  to  this  inter- 
pretation, is,  that  the  words  holy  (Jiagia)  and  un- 
clean (akatharta)  are  never  used  to  express  legiti- 
macy and  illegitimacy.  Lexicons  attribute  to  them 
no  such  meaning  ;  and  anti-pedo-baptists  refer  to  no 
instances  in  which  they  are  so  used.  These  words 
have;  in  the  Scriptures,  two  meanings.  They  sig- 
nify moral  qualities — personal  holiness  or  tmholi- 
ness ;  and  also  consecration,  or  the  opposite.  Thus, 
when  God  says,  u  Be  ye  holy  ;  for  I  am  holy  ;"  the 
word  holy  expresses  moral  qualities.  But  when  we 
read,  that  the  firstling  of  a  cow,  or  the  firstling  of 
a  sheep,  or  the  firstling  of  a  goat,  was  "  holy,"  we 
understand  that  those  animals  were  consecrated  to 


IXFAXT  BAPTISE.  247 

the  service  of  God  in  sacrifice.  And  when  we  read 
of  holy  ointment,  holy  linen,  holy  crown,  etc.,  as 
connected  with  the  temple  service,  we  understand  the 
word  in  the  sense  of  consecration.  And  so  the 
Jews  were  a  holy  nation,  and  their  children  a  holy 
seed.* 

The  words  clean  and  unclean  are  similarly  used. 
In  Isiaiah,  35:  8,  the  latter  word  expresses  moral 
qualities.  In  Leviticus,  5:  2,  and  in  a  multitude  of 
passages,  it  is  used  to  signify  ceremonial  impurity. 
In  these  two  senses,  the  words  in  question  are  con- 
stantly used,  hut  never  in  the  sense  of  legitimacy  or 
illegitimacy. 

Dr.  Whitby  says  :  "  The  word  used  for  a  bastard 
by  this  apostle  being  nothos,  Heb.,  12:  8,  and  the 
word  gnesios  being  the  proper  word  for  a  legitimate 
offspring,  had  the  apostle  intended  such  a  sense,  he 
would  have  used  the  words,  which  in  the  Greek 
writers  are  generally  used  in  that  sense,  and  not 
such  words  as  in  the  Septuagint,  and  in  the  Jewish 
language,  always  have  a  relation  to  federal  holiness, 
or  the  want  of  it ;  but  none  at  all  to  the  legitimacy 
or  spuriousness  of  the  birth."  He,  therefore,  ex- 
plains the  passage  thus:  "He  doth  not  say,  else 
were  your  children  bastards,  but  now  they  are  legit- 
imate ;  but  else  were  they  unclean,  that  is,  heathen 
children,  not  to  be  owned  as  a  holy  seed,  and,  there- 

*  Num.,  18 :  17 ;  Deut.,  7  :  6,  and  14:  2  ;  Ezra,  9  :  2. 


248  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

fore,  not  to  be  admitted  into  covenant  with  God,  as 
belonging  to  his  holy  people.  That  this  is  the  true 
import  of  the  words  akatharta  and  hagia,  will  be 
apparent  from  the  Scriptures,  in  which  the  heathens 
are  styled  the  unclean,  in  opposition  to  the  Jews  in 
covenant  with  God,  and,  therefore,  styled  an  holy 
people."  Dr.  Doddridge  says:  "  On  the  maturest 
and  most  impartial  consideration  of  this  text,  I  must 
judge  it  to  refer  to  infant  baptism.  Nothing  can  be 
more  apparent  than  that  the  word  holy  signifies 
persons  who  might  be  admitted  to  partake  of  the 
distinguishing  rites  of  God's  people.  And  as  for 
the  interpretation  which  so  many  of  our  brethren,  the 
Baptists,  have  contended  for,  that  holy  signifies 
legitimate,  and  unclean,  illegitimate;  (not  to  urge 
that  this  seems  an  unscriptural  sense  of  the  words,) 
nothing  can  be  more  evident,  than  that  the  argument 
will  by  no  means  bear  it ;  for  it  would  be  proving  a 
thing  by  itself,  idem  per  idem,  to  argue  that  the 
converse  of  the  parents  was  lawful,  because  the 
children  were  not  bastards  ;  whereas  all  who  thought 
the  converse  of  the  parents  unlawful,  must,  of 
course,  think  that  the  children  were  illegitimate" 
Dr.  Scott,  the  commentator,  explains  the  passage 
thus  :  "  If  this  had  not  been  so  appointed,  and  if 
Christians  had  been  commanded  to  put  away  their 
unbelieving  partners,  as  the  Jews  did  their  idolatrous 
wives ;  the  children  of  such  marriages  would  have 
been  accounted  relatively  '  unclean,'  and  so  excluded 


IXFAXT  BAPTISM.  249 

from  baptism,  even  as  those  of  the  Jews  in  the 
above-mentioned  case  were  from  circumcision  :  but 
on  the  contrary,  they  were  accounted  holy  in  the 
Christian  churches,  and  thus  admitted  among  them, 
as  a  part  of  the  visible  kingdom  of  Grod."  In  relation 
to  the  meaning  attached  to  the  words  unclean  and 
holy  by  anti-pedo-baptists,  he  says  :  "  But  in  all  the 
places  where  these  words  are  found  in  Scripture, 
there  is  not  one  which  will  admit  of  this  sense.  No 
doubt,  the  children  of  the  heathen,  who  were  law- 
fully married,  were  as  legitimate  as  those  of  Chris- 
tians, yet  they  were  never  said  to  be  •  holy.'  Some- 
thing more  must  be  meant,  ~hy  the  believer  '  sancti- 
fying '  the  unbelieving  party,  than  merely  legalizing 
their  marriage ;  for  that  would  have  been  valid  and 
lawful,  if  both  had  been  unbelievers  :  and  the  children 
would  not  really  be  more  '  holy,5  in  respect  of  their 
nature,  if  one  parent  was  a  believer,  than  if  both 
were  unbelievers.  But  as  the  word  6  unclean'  is  fre- 
quently used  in  a  relative  sense,  denoting  unfit  to  be 
admitted  to  God^s  ordinances ,  and  '  holy,'  the 
contrary,  as  in  this  sense  the  male  children  of  the 
Jews  were  6  holy,'  and  so  partakers  of  circumcision  ; 
while  those  of  the  Gentiles,  and  even  such  as  had  one 
idolatrous  parent,  were  '  unclean?  and  excluded 
from  circumcision  ;  I  cannot  but  conclude,  after 
long  attention  to  the  subject,  that  the  baptism  of  the 
infant  offspring  of  Christians  is  here  evidently  re- 


22 


250  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

f erred  to,  as  at  that  time  customary  in  the  churches,'5 
etc. 

Such  are  the  views  of  the  ablest  commentators  and 
critics,  respecting  the  meaning  of  this  passage  of 
Scripture.  It  is  certainly  remarkable,  that  the  op- 
ponents of  infant  baptism,  in  order  to  evade  its 
force,  have  been  compelled  to  assign  to  the  words 
holy  and  unclean,  meanings  which  they  never  have. 
But  if  such  liberties  are  taken  with  the  language  of 
the  Scriptures,  there  is  nothing  which  they  may  not 
be  made  to  teach. 

Alexander  Campbell  saw  the  difficulty  of  sustain- 
ing the  interpretation  of  this  passage,  so  long  adopted 
by  the  opponents  of  infant  baptism.  Declaring  both 
Baptists  and  Pedo-baptists  in  error,  he  gives  a  new 
interpretation.  He  says:  "It  is  not,  then,  legit- 
imacy of  wives,  husbands,  and  their  children ;  but 
whether  believing  and  unbelieving  parties  might, 
according  to  the  law  of  Christ,  continue  together. 
Paul's  response  is  briefly  thus  :  They  may  live  toge- 
ther— they  are  sanctified  or  clean  persons,  as  to  one 
another,  in  this  relation.  If  you  may  not  do  so, 
you  must  put  away  your  children  also ;  for  all  your 
children  stand  to  you  as  do  those  unbelieving,  un- 
holy persons.  If  you  must  reject  your  unchristian, 
unprofessing  husbands  and  wives,  you  must,  for  the 
same  reason,  reject  all  your  unprofessing,  unbeliev- 
ing children."  *      A  very  brief   notice  of   this  in- 

*  Lexington  Debate,  p.  384. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  251 

terpretation,  will  be  quite  sufficient  to  expose  its 
weakness. 

1st.  The  very  fact,  that  Mr.  Campbell  could  pro- 
duce no  commentator,  theologian,  or  critic,  who 
adopted  this  interpretation,  is  very  nearly  sufficient 
to  condemn  it  ;  for  it  is  most  improbable  that  the 
ablest  men,  repeatedly  and  carefully  examining  the 
passage,  should  all  have  entirely  failed  to  get  the 
true  meaning  of  it. 

2d.  Paul  was  never  chargeable  with  the  absurdity 
of  reasoning  from  the  conjugal  to  the  parental  rela- 
tion, as  if  they  were  identical.  If  it  were  true  that 
a  Christian  wife  might  not  continue  to  be  the  wife  of 
an  idolater,  it  would  not  follow  that  Christians  must 
exclude  their  children  from  their  presence.  The  two 
relations  are  so  totally  different,  that  no  reasonable 
man  would  place  them  on  the  same  footing. 

3d.  According  to  this  interpretation,  when  Paul 
says,  "  Else  were  your  children  unclean,  but  now 
they  are  holy,"  he  means  that  parents  may  lawfully 
live  in  the  same  house,  and  eat  at  the  same  table  with 
their  children  !  Why,  in  this  sense,  every  pagan  in 
the  world  is  holy ;  for  in  this  same  epistle,  Paul 
allows  Christians  to  attend  feasts  prepared  by  their 
pagan  friends.  *u  If  any  of  them  that  believe 
not  bid  you  to  a  feast,  and  ye  be  disposed  to  go, 
whatsoever  is  set  before  you,  eat,  asking  no   ques- 

*1  Cor.,  10:  27. 


252  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

tion  for  concienee5  sake."  Verily,  this  interpreta- 
tion gives  to  the  word  holy  a  sufficiently  comprehensive 
meaning  !  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  say,  that  the 
word  never  has  any  such  meaning.  Such  liberties 
taken  with  the  language  of  inspiration,  by  the  ablest 
opponents  of  Infant  baptism,  show  how  extremely  diffi- 
cult it  is  to  evade  the  clear  evidence  found  in  the  New 
Testament  in  favor  of  the  doctrine. 

But  why,  it  is  asked,  do  we  find  no  distinct  men- 
tion of  the  baptism  of  infants  in  the  New  Testament? 
Several  reasons  may  be  given  : 

1st.  Christian  baptism  was  not  instituted  until 
after  the  resurrection  of  Christ ;  and,  therefore, 
there  could  not  be,  in  the  four  Gospels,  any  mention 
of  the  baptism  of  infants. 

2d.  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  contains,  in  twenty- 
eight  chapters,  a  very  brief  and  rapid  sketch  of  the 
success  of  the  Gospel,  and  of  the  history  of  the 
church,  for  a  period  of  about  thirty  years.  Indeed, 
Lake,  the  writer  of  the  Acts,  confines  himself  mainly 
to  an  account  of  the  journeyings  and  labors  of  one 
of  the  apostles.  Necessarily,  therefore,  many  things 
done  by  the  apostles  must  have  been  omitted :  and, 
of  course,  those  things  would  be  omitted,  which  are 
made  sufficiently  plain  in  other  parts  of  the  Bible, 
and  about  which  there  was  no  controversy.  Thus, 
for  example,  there  is  no  specific  mention  of  the 
change  of  the  Sabbath  from  the  last  to  the  first  day 
of  the  week,  or  of  the  appointment  of  the  Christian 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  253 

Sabbath.  All  we  learn  in  the  New  Testament,  on 
this  subject,  we  get  indirectly  and  inferentially.  Yet 
the  Sabbath  is  quite  as  important  to  the  church  and 
the  world,  as  the  most  ardent  Pedo-baptist  would  con- 
sider the  baptism  of  infants.  And  it  is  worthy  of 
remark,  that  not  a  few  have  rejected  the  Christian 
Sabbath  on  precisely  the  same  grounds  en  which 
infant  baptism  is  rejected. 

3d.  This  is  a  subject  respecting  which  there  was 
not  likely  to  be  any  controversy  during  the  apostolic 
age,  unless,  indeed,  infants  had  been  excluded  from 
baptism.  The  converted  Jews  clung,  with  remark- 
able tenacity,  to  all  their  former  observances.  They 
did  not  give  up  circumcision,  until  the  council  at 
•Jerusalem  had  commanded  them  to  do  so  ;  and  they 
still  insisted  on  the  distinction  between  meats,  and 
on  the  the  observance  of  the  Jewish  holy  days. 
Now,  it  is  indeed  most  marvellous,  if,  whilst  thus 
tenacious  of  Jewish  rites  and  observances,  they 
quietly  gave  up  infant  membership,  without  a  word 
of  controversy.  But  if,  in  this  respect,  no  change 
was  made,  but  the  children  of  believers  sustained  to 
the  church  the  same  relation  they  had  so  long  sus- 
tained, there  was  no  more  reason  for  particularly 
mentioning  the  baptism  of  infants,  than  the  change 
of:  the  Sabbath.  Indeed,  this  silence  of  the  inspired 
writers  is  strong  presumptive  evidence  that  no  change 
was  made  in  the  law  of  membership. 

4th.    But  we  do  find   the   inspired  historian,  in 
9.9,* 


254  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

recording  the  baptisms  administered,  using  language 
which  precisely  accords  with  the  practice  of  Pedo- 
baptists,  but  does  not  suit  that  of  our  opponents. 
He  does  record  the  baptism  of  a  number  of  fami- 
lies. Two  of  these  are  recorded  in  the  sixteenth 
chapter  of  Acts.  Of  Lydia,  it  is  recorded,  that  the 
Lord  opened  her  heart,  that  she  attended  unto  the 
things  that  were  spoken  of  Paul.  "  And  when  she 
was  baptized  and  her  household,  she  besought  us," 
etc.  The  other  family  mentioned  as  baptized,  is 
that  of  the  jailor.  Several  others  are  mentioned. 
Now,  we  do  not  undertake  to  prove,  that  there  were 
infants  in  these  families.  We  simply  call  attention 
to  the  remarkable  fact,  that  the  inspired  historian 
mentions  the  conversion  of  the  head  of  the  family, 
and  says  nothing  of  the  conversion  of  the  family, 
but  does  say  they  were  baptized.  If  he  was  a  Pedo- 
baptist,  and  if  the  infants  of  those  families  were  bap- 
tized, he  wrote  just  as  he  might  have  been  expected 
to  write.  The  fact  is  truly  remarkable,  that  amongst 
anti-pedo-baptists  we  find  no  such  records  of  the 
baptism  of  families.  Some  years  ago,  I  took  occa- 
sion to  present  to  the  consideration  of  some  Baptist 
editors  this  singular  discrepancy  between  the  manner 
of  recording  baptisms  adopted  by  Luke,  and  that 
adopted  by  Baptists,  and  called  on  them  to  produce 
amongst  their  accounts  of  baptisms,  a  record  like 
that  in  the  case  of  Lydia.  They  succeeded  in  find- 
ing a  few  baptisms  of  whole  families  ;  but  they  had 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  255 

been  so  unfortunate  as  to  mention  the  conversion  of 
the  members  of  the  families,  as  well  as  their  bap- 
tism. They,  therefore,  failed  to  find  any  record 
like  that  of  Luke.  This  argument  was  urged  in  the 
debate  with  Alexander  Campbell,  and  no  attempt 
was  made  to  reply  to  it.  I  then  said,  what  I  now 
repeat — "  One  thing  is  certain,  we  write  as  Luke 
wrote,  and  our  anti-pedo-baptist  friends  do  not. 
Would  it  not  be  truly  wonderful,  should  it  turn  out 
to  be  true,  that  those  who  ivrite  like  Luke,  do  not 
act  like  him  ;  whilst  those  who  do  not  write  like 
him,  are  the  very  persons  who  act  like  him  ?  "  On 
this  point,  the  late  Dr.  Woods,  of  Andover,  uses  the 
following  language  :  "It  will  be  observed,  that  when- 
ever the  apostles  speak  of  baptizing  households,  they 
speak  of  it  without  any  restriction.  They  do  not  say 
that  Lydia  was  baptized,  and  those  of  her  family 
who  believed ;  or  that  the  jailor  was  baptized,  and 
as  many  of  those  who  belonged  to  him  as  believed. 
There  is  no  such  limitation  as  this.  Lydia  ivas 
baptized,  and  her  family.  The  jailer  teas  bap- 
tized, and  all  his.  And,  considering  how  succinct 
the  history  of  baptism  is,  the  number  of  household 
baptisms  particularly  mentioned,  must  be  allowed  to 
be  considerable,  and  to  be  quite  a  noticeable  circum- 
stance in  that  history.  Now,  is  this  a  circumstance 
ever  to  be  met  with  in  histories  written  by  those 
ministers  who  do  not  baptize  infants  ?  For  them  to 
speak  familiarly,  and  without  restriction  or  explana- 


256  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

tion,  of  baptizing  families ,  would  be  inconsistent 
with  their  views  and  their  practice." 

But,  says  Mr.  Carson,  in  reply  to  this  argument, 
' '  There  are  not  now  any  examples  of  the  abundant 
success  that  the  Gospel  had  in  the  apostles'  days. 
We  do  not  find  that  men  believe  by  households, 
more  than  they  are  baptized  by  households.  I  sup- 
pose that  the  Baptist  missionaries  have  a  baptized 
household  as  often  as  they  have  a  believing  house- 
hold." *  Just  so.  But  the  apostles  had  household 
baptisms  in  cases  where,  so  far  as  the  record  shows, 
there  were  not  believing  households.  This,  precisely, 
is  the  difference  between  the  apostles  and  the  Bap- 
tists. The  latter,  it  is  true,  have  baptized  families  ; 
but  then,  in  giving  an  account  of  these  baptisms, 
they  always  mention  the  faith,  not  only  of  the  head 
of  the  family,  but  of  all  the  members.  The  apos- 
tles baptized  families  ;  aud  in  their  account  of  them, 
they  mention  the  faith  of  the  heads,  but  not  of  the 
members.  Mr.  Carson  entirely  fails  to  account  for 
this  difference.  If  the  apostles  were  Pedo-baptists, 
all  is  plain ;  if  not,  the  fact  that  they  wrote  so 
little  like  Baptists,  and  so  much  like  Pedo-baptists, 
is  unaccountable. 

*  On  Baptism,  p.  305. 


IXFAXT  BAPTISM.  257 


CHAPTER  V. 


There  are  two  methods  which.  Christians  have 
been  accustomed  to  adopt,  in  order  to  reach  a  satis- 
factory conclusion  in  regard  to  a  controverted  doc- 
trine. 

1st.  They  have  inquired  how  wise  and  good  men, 
who  have  made  the  Scriptures  their  study,  have  gen- 
erally understood  them.  For  as  it  is  agreed  amongst 
Protestants,  that  all  important  doctrines  are  clearly 
taught  in  the  Scriptures,  it  is  far  more  probable  that 
a  comparatively  small  number  of  persons  of  some 
one  denomination,  have  been  misled  by  prejudice  or 
party  spirit,  than  that  the  great  body  of  Christians 
of  different  denominations,  in  different  ages  and 
countries,  have  misunderstood  the  obvious  teaching 
of  the  Bible.  So  far  as  this  principle  has  weight, 
(and  it  is  admitted  to  have  much,)  it  is  decidedly  in 
favor  of  infant  baptism.  For  it  is  an  indisputable 
fact,  that  the  overwhelming  majority  of  the  readers 
of  the  Bible,  embracing  the  most  eminent  critics  and 
commentators,  ministers  and  laymen,  in  every  age 
and  country,  have  understood  the  Bible  to  teach  this 
doctrine.  The  number  of  those  who  have  rejected 
it,  has  been,  and  now  is,  comparatively  a  mere 
handful. 

2d.  The  second  method  adopted  to  aid  in  deciding 
a  controverted  doctrine,  has  been  to  inquire  into  its 


258  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

history,  and  to  ascertain  how  nigh  to  the  apostolic 
age  it  can  be  traced.  For  as  it  is  certain,  that  the 
apostles  promulgecl  none  but  sound  doctrines,  and  as 
great  errors  could  prevail  in  the  church  only  by 
gradual  progress  ;  the  nearer  any  important  doctrine 
can  be  traced  to  the  apostolic  age,  the  greater  the 
probability  of  its  truth.  Thus,  we  can  trace  the 
Sabbath  back  to  the  earliest  ages  of  Christianity. 
The  doctrine  of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  is  sustained 
by  similar  testimony;  and  so  are  all  the  leading 
doctrines  of  the  Gospel.  But  we  can  go  back  in  the 
history  of  the  church,  to  a  period  when  no  mention 
is  made  of  the  Pope,  of  the  worship  of  saints  and 
angels,  of  the  veneration  of  relics,  of  the  sacrifice 
of  the  mass,  of  auricular  confession,  of  purgatory, 
of  prayers  for  the  dead,  of  the  celibacy  of  the 
clergy,  etc.  And  then  we  can  trace  the  gradual  rise 
of  all  the  leading  errors  of  popery. 

But  can  we  go  back,  by  the  light  of  history,  to  a 
period,  when  no  mention  is  made  of  infant  baptism  ? 
If  it  is  an  error,  which  arose  after  the  apostolic  age, 
it  could  not  have  commenced  simultaneously  in  all 
countries.  It  must  have  been  introduced  in  some 
particular  part  of  the  church ;  and  as  it  would  have 
been  a  novelty  calculated  to  arrest  attention,  it  must 
have  excited  some  controversy.  It  is  not  like  the 
power  of  the  Pope,  which  was  of  very  gradual 
growth,  and,  therefore,  excited  little  attention ;  nor 
like  the  worship  of  pictures  and  images,  which  were 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  259 

first  placed  in  churches,  without  any  purpose  of  hav- 
ing them  so  used,  and  which  grew  by  imperceptible 
degrees.  On  the  contrary,  the  baptism  of  the  first 
infant  would  have  been  an  innovation  so  remarkable 
as  to  have  arrested  attention,  and  produced  a  strong 
sensation.  Reflect  for  a  moment.  Up  to  the  time 
when  the  first  infant  was  baptized,  all  the  churches 
everywhere,  we  are  to  suppose,  held  the  doctrine, 
that  none  but  believers  should  be  baptized.  Now, 
either  all  of  them  passed  precisely  at  the  same  time 
from  Baptist  to  Pedo-baptist  sentiments,  or  the  doc- 
trine that  infants  ought  to  be  baptized,  was  first 
embraced  in  some  one  place,  and  gradually  spread 
over  the  entire  church.  The  first  supposition  is  so 
improbable,  not  to  say  impossible,  that  no  one  will 
advocate  it.  If,  then,  the  doctrine  was  advanced  in 
some  one  place,  whilst  everywhere  else  Baptist  senti- 
ments prevailed,  it  is  impossible  that  there  should 
have  been  no  controversy  respecting  it,  nor  the 
slightest  intimation  as  to  the  time  of  its  rise,  and  as 
to  its  progress  among  the  churches.  Suppose  the 
attempt  made  now  to  introduce  infant  Baptism  or 
baptism  by  sprinkling  into  the  Baptist  churches,  in 
this  and  other  countries.  Would  it  be  possible  to 
succeed  without  warm  opposition  and  earnest  contro- 
versy ?  And  how  was  it  with  regard  to  other  inno- 
vations upon  the  doctrines  of  the  church  ?  When 
Montanus,  in  the  second  century,  introduced  serious 
doctrinal   errors,   the    result  was    controversy   and 


2.60  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

division.  When  Origen,  in  the  third  century, 
introduced  new  doctrines,  drawn  from  the  Platonic 
Philosophy,  again  the  church  was  agitated  with  con- 
troversy. When  Arius,  in  the  beginning  of  the 
fourth  century,  denied  the  doctrine  of  the  divinity  of 
Christ,  the  whole  church  was  violently  agitated  and 
divided.  In  a  word,  through  all  those  early  ages, 
we  meet  with  warm  controversies  on  many  points  of 
far  less  importance,  and  less  adapted  to  excite  atten- 
tion, than  infant  baptism. 

Now,  can  any  one  tell  us  in  what  age  infant  bap- 
tism commenced  in  the  church  ?  We  confidently 
assert,  that  no  one  can.  Indeed,  our  anti-pedo- 
baptist  friends,  with  all  their  zeal  and  investigation, 
throw  no  light  on  this  subject.  No  writer  has  chron- 
icled the  rise  of  infant  baptism,  and  not  one  word  of 
controversy,  as  to  whether  it  is  scriptural,  appears  in 
the  writings  of  the  Christian  fathers.  On  the  con- 
trary, when  we  first  find  it  mentioned,  it  is  spoken  of 
as  if  universally  prevailing,  and  as  by  all  regarded 
as  scriptural.  Certain  questions  did,  indeed,  arise 
at  an  early  day,  respecting  unimportant  circum- 
stances connected  with  infant  baptism ;  but  none 
were  found  to  advocate  the  sentiments  of  anti-pedo- 
baptists. 

Let  us  now  examine  carefully  the  testimony  of  the 
early  Christian  writers.  The  first  writer,  whose  tes- 
timony I  give,  is  Irenaeus,  who  was  born  in  the 
apostolic   age,   or  about  the  year  97,   four   years 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  261 

before  the  death  of  the  apostle  John.*  He  was 
chosen  Bishop  of  Lyons,  in  the  year  167,  sixty- 
seven  years  after  the  apostolic  age.  His  language 
is  as  follows : 

"  Therefore,  as  he  (Christ)  was  a  Master,  he  had 
also  the  age  of  a  Master.  Not  disdaining  nor  going 
in  a  way  above  human  nature,  nor  breaking,  in  his 
own  person,  the  law  which  he  had  set  for  mankind, 
but  sanctifying  every  several  age  by  the  likeness  that 
it  has  to  him.  For  he  came  to  save  all  persons  by 
himself  :  all,  I  mean,  who  by  him  are  regenerated 
unto  God — infants  and  little  ones,  and  children  and 
youths,  and  elder  persons.  Therefore,  he  went 
through  the  several  ages  ;  for  infants  being  made  an 
infant,  sanctifying  infants/*5  etc.f  The  argument 
from  this  passage  depends  upon  the  meaning  of  the 
phrase,  "  regenerated  unto  God."  Did  Irenaeus 
mean  by  this  phrase  Christian  baptism  ?  If  he  did, 
the  passage  is  a  clear  proof,  that  the  doctrine  of 
infant  baptism  prevailed  in  the  church  in  the  age 
immediately  succeeding  that  of  the  apostles.  Dr. 
Wall  says  :  "  Irenaeus  himself  uses  it  so  in  all  other 
places  of  his  book  that  I  have  ever  observed."  J 
Alexander  Campbell,  in  his  debate  with  McCalla, 
many  years  ago,  denied  that  by  the  word  regenera- 


*  Some  date  his  birth,  a  few  years  later  -,  but  the  difference  is 
too  small  to  be  of  any  importance. 

f  Adv.  Haeres.  Lib.  2,  ch.  39.         ±  Vol.  1,  ch.  3,  p.  73 

23 


262  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

ted  Irenaeus  meant  baptized ;  but  lie  afterwards 
changed  his  opinion.  In  the  Millen.  Harb.  Extra, 
y.  2,  pp.  28,  29,  he  writes  as  follows  : 

6  i  In  my  debate  with  Mr.  McCalla.,  I  objected  to 
the  substitution  of  the  word  regenerated  for  im- 
mersed, in  the  extracts  from  Irenaeus,  and  the  other 
primitive  fathers,  as  they  are  called,  on  the  ground 
of  their  not  being  exactly  representatives  of  the  same 
ideas  universally.  I  admitted,  that  sometimes  they 
used  the  word  regenerated  for  baptized,  but  not 
always ;  and,  indeed,  not  at  all  in  the  popular 
sense  of  regenerated.  Well  now,  it  comes  to  pass, 
that  I  represent  all  the  primitive  fathers  as  using 
the  term  regenerated  as  equivalent  to  the  term  bap- 
tized. All  this  is  true  ;  and  what  then  ?  Why,  at 
that  time,  I  used  the  word  regenerated  as  expressive 
of  a  spiritual  change,  and  found  that  these  fathers 
spoke  of  a  spiritual  change,  as  well  as  we.  I 
could  not,  therefore,  reconcile  this  to  the  exclusive 
application  of  the  term  regenerated  to  the  act  of 
immersion  ;  but  on  a  more  accurate  and  strict  ex- 
amination of  their  writings,  and  of  the  use  of  this 
term  in  the  New  Testament,  I  am  assured  that  they 
used  the  term  regenerated  as  equivalent  to  immer- 
sion, (baptism,)  and  spoke  of  the  spiritual  change 
under  other  terms  and  modes  of  speech,53  etc.  Now, 
if  Dr.  Wall  and  Mr.  Campbell  are  right  as  to  the 
use  of  the  word  regenerated  by  the  Christian  fa- 
thers, the  testimony  in  favor  of  infant  baptism  is 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  263 

conclusive.  For  it  will  not  be  pretended,  that  it 
could  have  prevailed  at  so  early  a  period,  unless 
taught  and  practiced  by  the  apostles.  This  point 
was  pressed  upon  Mr.  Campbell,  in  the  Lexington 
Debate,  and  the  passage  just  quoted  was  read.  His 
only  answer  was  the  following  :  "  Suppose  I  admit 
that  all  the  fathers  from  Justin  Martyr  down  to 
Theodoret,  423,  used  baptism  and  regeneration  as 
synonymous,  and  Irenaeus  generally  with  the  others, 
though  he  lived  A.  D.  178  ;  what  does  it  prove  in 
the  case  before  us  ?  That  infant  baptism  is  a  divine 
institution,  because  it  is  probable,  even  certain, 
that  Irenaeus  referred  to  it,  under  another  name, 
at  the  close  of  the  second  century  ?  "  *  Observe, 
Mr.  Campbell  here  admits,  that  Irenaeus  did  refer  to 
infant  baptism ;  but  he  seeks  to  place  him,  as  far  as 
possible,  from  the  apostles,  by  saying,  he  lived  A.  D. 
178,  as  \i  he  had  lived  but  a  single  year !  But  the 
truth  is,  he  was  a  disciple  and  friend  of  Poly  carp,  who 
was  a  disciple  of  the  Apostle  John.  Eusebius  speaks 
of  an  epistle  written  by  Irenaeus  to  Florinus.  "  In 
that  epistle,  indeed,"  says  he,  "  which  we  have 
already  mentioned,  he  again  speaks  of  his  intimacy 
with  Poly  carp."  Irenaeus  says  to  Florinus,  "  For 
I  saw  thee  when  I  was  yet  a  boy  in  the  lower  Asia 
with  Polycarp,  moving  in  great  splendor  at  court, 
etc.     I  remember  the  events  of  those  times  better 

*  p.  430. 


264  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

than  those  of  more  recent  occurrence.  As  the  studies 
of  our  youth  growing  with  our  minds,  unite  with  it 
so  firmly,  that  I  can  tell  also  the  very  place  where 
the  blessed  Polycarp  was  accustomed  to  sit  and  dis- 
course;  and  also  his  entrances,  his  walks,  the  com- 
plexion of  his  life  and  the  form  of  his  body,  and 
his  conversations  with  the  people,  and  his  familiar 
intercourse  with  John,  as  he  was  accustomed  to  tell, 
as  also  his  familiarity  with  those  that  had  seen  the 
Lord.  How  also,  he  used  to  relate  their  discourses, 
and  what  things  he  heard  from  them  concerning  the 
Lord.  *  *  *  These  things,  by  the  mercy  of 
God,  and  the  opportunity  then  afforded  me,  I  atten- 
tively heard,  noting  them  clown,  not  on  paper,  but 
in  my  heart ;  and  these  same  facts  I  am  always  in 
the  habit,  by  the  grace  of  God,  to  recall  faithfully 
to  mind."  *  Now,  if  the  Apostle  John  taught  anti- 
Peclo-baptist  principles,  it  is  certain  that  Polycarp 
held  and  taught  the  same ;  and  as  Irenaeus  was 
taught  by  Polycarp,  and  held  him  in  great  venera- 
tion, he  certainly  agreed  with  his  teacher.  Since, 
then,  Irenaeus  taught  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism, 
both  Polycarp  and  John  the  Apostle  must  have  taught 
the  same. 

As  the  testimony  of  Irenaeus  is  of  especial  im- 
portance, we  think  it  proper  to  appeal  to  the  learned 
Neander,  to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  his  language. 

*  Easeb.  Eccl.  Hist,  ch.  20,  pp.  205,205. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  265 

He  says  :  "  Irenaeus  is  the  first  church,  teacher  in 
whom  we  find  any  allusion  to  infant  baptism,  and  in 
his  mode  of  expressing  himself  on  the  subject,  he 
leads  us,  at  the  same  time,  to  recognize  its  connec- 
tion with  the  essence  of  Christian  consciousness." 
And  after  quoting  the  passage  on  which  we  are 
remarking,  he  says  :  "  It  is  here  especially  import- 
ant to  observe,  that  infants  {infantes)  are  expressly 
distinguished  from  children  {par villi)  whom  Christ 
could  also  benefit  by  his  example  ;  and  that  they  are 
represented  as  capable  of  receiving  from  Christ,  who 
had  appeared  in  their  age,  nothing  more  than  an  ob- 
jective sanctification.  This  sanctification  becomes  them 
in  so  far  as  they  are  regenerated  by  Christ  to  God. 
Regeneration  and  baptism  are  in  Irenaeus  intimately 
connected  ;  and  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  how  the 
term  regeneration  can  be  employed,  in  reference  to 
this  age,  to  denote  anything  else  than  baptism."  * 
Without  adopting  the  sentiments  of  Wall,  Campbell, 
or  Neander,  respecting  the  design  of  baptism,  we 
cannot  but  think  there  is  strong  evidence  that  Ire- 
naeus refers  to  infant  baptism. 

Dr.  Wall  is  quite  confident  that  Clement  Alex- 
andrinus  refers  to  the  same  thing,  when  giving  direc- 
tions to  Christians  respecting  their  ornaments,  he 
advises  to  the  use  of  such  pictures  and  engravings  as 
are  innocent,  modest,  and  useful.    "  Let  your  seal," 


*  Hist,  of  Church,  vol.  1,  p.  311. 

23* 


266  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

says  he,  "  be  a  dove,  or  a  fish,  or  a  ship  under  sail,5' 
etc.  And  if  any  one  be  by  trade  a  fisherman,  he 
"will  do  well  to  think  of  an  apostle,  and  the  children 
taken  out  of  the  water."  *  Wall  says  :  "  An  apos- 
tle's taking,  drawing,  or  lifting  a  child  out  of  the 
water,  cannot  refer  to  anything  that  I  can  think  of, 
but  the  baptizing  of  it.  And  infantem  de  fonte 
levare,  is  a  phrase  used  by  the  ancients,  denoting 
the  baptizing  of  it,  almost  as  commonly  as  the  word 
baptizing  itself.  And  as  the  emblem  of  an  an- 
chor, or  of  a  ship  under  sail,  used  for  the  impress 
of  a  seal-ring,  does  suppose  those  things  to  be  com- 
monly seen,  known,  and  used ;  so  St.  Clement's 
advising  the  emblem  of  an  apostle  baptizing  an 
infant,  to  be  used  by  the  Christians  in  his  time 
(which  was  but  about  ninety  years  after  the  apostles) 
for  the  sculpture  of  their  seals,  does  suppose  it  com- 
monly known  by  them,  that  the  apostles  did  perform 
that  office."  It  is  difficult  to  refute  this  argument ; 
and  for  this  reason,  probably,  Dr.  Gale,  in  his 
reply  to  Dr.  Wall,  passed  it  unnoticed.  Would  a 
Baptist  advise  his  brethren  to  use  a  seal  with  such  a 
device  on  it  ? 

The  argument  for  infant  baptism,  derived  from 
the  language  of  Tertullian,  who  lived  within  about 
one  hundred  years  of  the  Apostle  John,  is  very 
strong.     His  testimony  is  the  more  important,  be- 

•  Vol.  1,  p.  84. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  267 

cause   he    opposed    the  baptism   of    infants.      He 
says : 

"  But  they  whose  duty  it  is  to  administer  baptism, 
are  to  know  that  it  must  not  be  given  rashly.  Give  to 
every  one  that  asketh  thee,  has  its  proper  subject, 
and  relates  to  alms-giving  ;  but  that  command  rather 
is  here  to  be  considered,  Give  not  that  which  is 
holy  to  dogs,  neither  cast  your  pearls  before 
swine ;  and  that,  lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man, 
neither  be  partaker  of  other  men's  faults.  *  * 
Therefore,  according  to  every  one's  condition  and 
disposition,  and  also  their  age,  the  delaying  of  bap- 
tism is  more  profitable,  especially  in  the  case  of  little 
children.  For  what  need  is  there  that  the  godfathers 
should  be  brought  into  danger  ?  Because  they  may 
either  fail  of  their  promises  by  death,  or  they  may 
be  mistaken  by  a  child's  proving  of  wicked  disposi- 
tion. Our  Lord  says,  indeed,  Do  not  forbid  them 
to  come  to  me.  Therefore,  let  them  come  when  they 
are  grown  up  ;  let  them  come  when  they  under- 
stand, when  they  are  instructed  whither  it  is  that 
they  come ;  let  them  be  made  Christians,  when  they 
can  know  Christ.  What  need  their  guiltless  age 
make  such  haste  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  Men 
will  proceed  more  warily  in  worldly  things  ;  and  he 
that  should  not  have  earthly  goods  committed  to  him, 
yet  shall  have  heavenly.     *Let  them  know  how  to 

*  Wall's  Hist.,  v.  1,  pp.  93,  94. 


268  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

desire  this  salvation,  that  you  may  appear  to  have 
given  to  one  that  asketh." 

In  this  language  of  Tertullian,  there  are  several 
things  worthy  of  special  notice  : 

1.  Tertullian  was  an  opposer  of  infant  baptism  ; 
and,  therefore,  so  far  as  his  testimony  favors  the 
doctrine,  it  is  the  more  conclusive.  Yet  he  was  not 
sound  in  the  faith,  but  was  led  astray  by  the  heresies 
of  Montanus.     Whilst,  therefore,  his  testimony  to  a 

fact  is  unobjectionable — especially  when  that  testi- 
mony was  against  his  opinions — his  views  of  Scrip- 
ture doctrine  are  of  little  worth. 

2.  The  fact  that  he  writes  against  infant  baptism, 
is  proof  conclusive,  that  it  then  existed  in  the  church. 
It  cannot  be  imagined,  that  he  would  oppose  a  doc- 
trine which  had  no  existence.  Dr.  Gale  felt  com- 
pelled to  admit  that  the  language  of  Tertullian  may 
prove  "  there  were  some  persons  at  that  time,  who 
among  many  other  vile  notions,  were  about  to  intro- 
duce this  of  the  necessity  of  baptism  to  the  salvation 
of  infants." 

3.  The  grounds  on  which  he  opposes  the  baptism 
of  infants,  prove  the  general  prevalence  of  the  doc- 
trine, and  the  general  belief,  that  it  was  scriptural 
and  valid.  Every  man,  when  opposing  a  doctrine, 
of  course,  employs  against  it  the  strongest  argu- 
ments with  which  he  is  acquainted.  Doubtless  Ter- 
tullian did  so.     But  observe  : 

1st.  He   did   not   say  the   practice   of   baptizing 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  269 

infants  is  unscriptural.  And  his  evasion  of  the 
argument,  which  he  knew  to  be  founded  on  the 
language  of  Christ,  is  puerile.  "  Our  Lord,"  says 
he,  "  says  indeed,  Do  not  forbid  them  to  come  to 
me.  Therefore,  let  thern  come  when  they  are  grown 
up."  Precisely  this  ground  was  taken  by  the  dis- 
ciples ;  and,  therefore,  the  Saviour  rebuked  them, 
and  allowed  the  children  to  come  immediately.  But 
why  did  not  Tertullian  pronounce  the  baptism  of 
infants  unscriptural  and  invalid  ?  Evidently,  because 
he  did  not  helieve  it  to  be  so. 

2d.  He  did  not  oppose  infant  baptism  as  a  novelty, 
which  errorists  were  attempting  to  introduce  into  the 
church,  and  which  had  not  been  generally  adopted. 
Why  did  he  intimate  nothing  of  the  kind  ?  If  he 
could  have  pronounced  it  unscriptural  and  a  novelty, 
these  would  have  been  the  most  conclusive  argu- 
ments against  it.  Will  it  be  pretended,  that  he 
designedly  omitted  to  adduce  the  very  arguments 
which  would  have  had  most  weight,  and  which  were 
constantly  used  with  reference  to  other  doctrines  ? 

But,  says  Dr.  Gale,  "  Had  it  been  the  settled 
practice  and  judgment  of  the  church,  and  what  they 
thought  was  supported  by  the  authority  and  tradition 
of  the  apostles,  etc.,  it  cannot  be  imagined  that  Ter- 
tullian should  venture  to  oppose  it  ;  or,  if  he  did, 
that  he  should  employ  no  more  pains  to  excuse  what 
seemed  to  contradict  the  practice  of  the  apostles  and 
the  whole  church."     A  similar  argument  is  used  by 


270  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

Neander.  But  this  reasoning  goes  much  further 
than  its  author  designed ;  for  it  is  certain,  that 
Tertullian  did,  in  the  same  connection,  oppose  the 
baptism  of  unmarried  persons,  those  never  married, 
and  widows  and  widowers,  until  old  age.     He  said — 

"  For  no  less  reason,  unmarried  persons  ought  to 
be  kept  off,  who  are  likely  to  come  into  temptation, 
as  well  as  those  that  never  were  married,  upon 
account  of  their  coming  to  ripeness,  as  those  in 
widowhood  for  the  miss  of  their  partner,  until  they 
either  marry,  or  are  confirmed  in  continence.  They 
that  understand  the  weight  of  baptism,  will  rather 
dread  the  receiving  it,  than  the  delaying  of  it.  An 
entire  faith  is  secure  of  salvation." 

Now,  let  us  borrow  the  logic  of  Dr.  Gale,  and 
argue  thus  :  "Had  it  been  the  settled  practice  and 
judgment  of  the  church,  and  what  they  thought  was 
supported  by  the  authority  and  tradition  of  the 
apostles,  that  young  or  unmarried  persons,  and 
widows  and  widowers  should  be  baptized,  it  cannot 
be  imagined  that  Tertullian  should  venture  to  oppose 
it,"  etc.  Is  not  this  argument  just  as  good  as  Dr. 
Gale's  ?  Is  it  not  precisely  the  same  argument, 
applied  to  a  different  class  of  persons  ?  The  argu- 
ment, reduced  to  a  syllogism,  is  as  follows  : 

Tertullian  would  not  have  opposed  a  doctrine  sus- 
tained by  the  settled  judgment  and  practice  of  the 
church,  and,  as  they  believed,  by  the  authority  and 
tradition  of  the  apostles. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  271 

But  he  did  oppose  the  doctrine  of  infant  bap- 
tism. 

Therefore,  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism  was  not 
supported  bj  the  settled  judgment  and  practice  of 
the  church. 

Now,  let  us  try  another  syllogism  on  the  same 
principle.     Take  the  following  : 

Tertullian  would  not  have  opposed  a  doctrine 
sustained  by  the  settled  judgment  and  practice  of 
the  church,  etc. 

But  he  did  oppose  the  baptism  of  young  and  un- 
married persons,  and  of  widows  and  widowers. 

Therefore,  the  baptism  of  such  persons  was  not 
sustained  by  the  settled  judgment  and  practice  of 
the  church. 

This  syllogism  is  just  as  good  as  the  other.  It 
stands  on  precisely  the  same  principle.  Yet  it  proves 
what  all  admit  untrue.  The  major  proposition  is  un- 
true ;  for  Tertullian  did  oppose  a  doctrine  admitted 
to  be  sustained  by  the  practice  of  the  church  and  by 
apostolic  authority. 

3.  The  language  of  Tertullian  necessarily  implies, 
that  he  himself  believed  the  baptism  of  infants  to  be 
both  scriptural  and  valid.  The  "  godfathers,"  he 
says,  are  brought  into  danger.  How?  By  the  pro- 
fanation of  a  sacred  ordinance  ?  >To ;  but  because 
they  may  fail  to  fulfil  their  promises.  Is  this  anti- 
pedo-baptist  doctrine?  And  then  he  asks — "What 
need   their    guiltless    age   make    such  haste  to   the 


272  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

forgiveness  of  sins  ?  ??  If  he  did  not  believe  infant 
baptism  to  be  of  divine  authority,  how  could  he 
regard  it  as  efficacious  in  securing  remission  of  sins  ? 
If  he  had  been  an  anti-pedo -baptist,  would  he  not 
rather  have  asked — "  What  propriety  is  there  in  so 
gross  a  profanation  of  a  sacred  ordinance?"  The 
truth  evidently  is,  that  Tertullian  ascribed  a  super- 
stitious efficacy  to  baptism,  as  securing  the  remission 
of  all  sins  ;  and  he  regarded  sins  committed  after 
baptism  as  more  dangerous  than  those  committed 
before.  On  this  ground,  and  not  because  he  held 
anti-pedo-baptist  views,  he  advised  the  delay  of 
baptism,  not  only  in  the  case  of  infants,  but  of 
others. 

This  argument,  then,  stands  thus  :  Tertullian  was 
opposed  to  infant  baptism.  His  writing  against  it 
proves  its  existence  in  the  church  in  his  day,  which 
was  within  one  hundred  years  of  the  apostolic  age. 
He  did  not  venture  to  oppose  it  as  unscriptural^  or 
as  a  novelty.  We  are,  therefore,  warranted  in  the 
conclusion,  that  at  that  time  infant  baptism  was 
universally  practiced,  and  was  universally  regarded 
as  derived  from  Christ  and  his  apostles,  and,  there- 
fore, as  scriptural.  Now,  is  it  credible,  is  it  possi- 
ble, that  within  one  hundred  years  after  the  death  of 
the  last  of  the  apostles,  it  had  been  introduced  into 
the  church,  without  the  least  controversy,  and  had 
continued  so  long,  and  had  become  so  universally 
practiced,  that   Tertullian    ventured  not   either   to 


1XFANT  BAPTISM.  273 

condemn  it  as  unscriptural,  or  to  assail  it  as  a  nov- 
elty? Verily,  Tertullian,  though  an  opposer  of 
infant  baptism,  is  a  most  important  witness  in  favor 
of  it, 

The  next  witness  we  shall  call,  is  Origen,  who  was 
the  most  learned  of  the  Christian  fathers.  Jones, 
the  Baptist  historian,  quotes  with  approbation,  the 
following  language  of  Dr.  Priestley,  respecting  him : 
"  He  was  a  man  so  remarkable  for  his  piety,  genius, 
and  application,  that  he  must  be  considered  an 
honor  to  Christianity  and  to  human  nature."  Origen 
was  born  in  the  year  185,  or  about  eighty-five  years 
after  the  death  of  John  the  apostle.  His  grand- 
father, or,  at  least,  his  great  grandfather,  says 
Wall,  "  must  have  lived  in  the  apostles5  time." 
And  he  acids,  "  As  he  could  not  be  ignorant  whether 
he  himself  was  baptized  in  infancy,  so  he  had  no 
further  than  his  own  family  to  go  for  incmiry  how  it 
was  practiced  in  the  times  of  the  apostles."  And 
this  information  he  could  obtain  the  more  accurately, 
because  his  ancestors  were  Christians.  His  father 
died  as  a  martyr  in  the  persecution  under  Severus, 
m  the  year  after  the  apostles,  102."  Eusebius  says  : 
"  The  Christian  doctrine  was  conveyed  to  him  from 
his  forefathers."  *  He  was  a  man  of  eminent  learn- 
ing. He  traveled  extensively,  and  was  consulted  on 
religious  subjects   by   persons    in   all  parts    of   the 


*  Eccl.  Hist.,  Lib.,  vi,  ch.  19. 

24 


274  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

world.  It  is,  therefore,  impossible  that  he  could  he 
ignorant,  either  of  the  practice  or  of  the  faith  of  the 
church,  from  his  own  age  to  that  of  the  apostles.  In 
his  Homily  on  Luke  14th,  he  says  : 

64  Having  occasion  given  in  this  place,  I  will  men- 
tion a  thing  that  causes  frequent  inquiries  among 
the  brethren.  Infants  are  baptized  for  the  for- 
giveness of  sins.  Of  what  sins  ?  Or  when  have 
they  sinned  ?  Or  how  can  any  reason  of  the  law 
in  their  case  hold  good,  but  according  to  that  sense 
that  we  mentioned  even  now ;  none  is  free  from  pol- 
lution, though  his  life  be  but  of  the  length  of  one 
day  upon  the  earth  ?  And  it  is  for  that  reason, 
because  by  the  sacrament  of  baptism  the  pollution 
of  our  birth  is  taken  away,  that  infants  are  bap- 
tized." Again,  in  his  commentary  on  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans,  he  says  :  "  For  this  also  it  was,  that  the 
church  had  from  the  apostles  a  tradition  to  give 
baptism  even  to  infants.  For  they  to  whom  the 
divine  mysteries  were  committed,  knew  that  there  is 
in  all  persons  the  natural  pollution  of  sin,  which 
must  be  done  away  by  water  and  the  Spirit."  This 
testimony  is  clear  and  conclusive.  The  manner  in 
which  Origen  mentions  infant  baptism,  in  connec- 
tion with  original  sin,  shows,  that  it  was  universally 
practiced  in  the  church,  and  that  it  was  believed  to 
be  sustained  by  the  authority  of  the  apostles.  Is  it 
probable,  is  it  possible,  that  a  man  born  within 
eighty-four  years  of  the  apostles,  whose  ancestors 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  275 

were  Christians — a  man  of  so  great  learning  and 
general  information — could  have  been  mistaken  as 
to  the  practice  of  the  church  in  his  day,  and  as  far 
back  as  the  apostolic  age  ?  Is  it  possible,  if  the 
primitive  Christians  were  anti-pedo-baptists,  that 
their  faith  and  their  practice  could  have  undergone 
so  great  a  change  in  a  few  years,  and  so  quietly  that 
the  best  informed  men  in  the  church  believed  there 
had  been  no  change  at  all? 

Dr.  Gale,  in  his  reply  to  Wall,  sought  to  invalidi- 
date  this  testimony  of  Origen,  on  the  ground  that 
his  writings  have  been  interpolated  and  corrupted. 
But  in  the  Lexington  Debate,  Mr.  Campbell  at- 
tempted no  such  defence.  In  this  he  was  wise ;  for 
in  addition  to  the  testimony  of  his  writings,  we  have 
that  of  Jerome,  a  constant  reader  of  his  works  in 
the  original  Greek,  that  he  held  to  infant  baptism. 

The  next  witness  in  favor  of  infant  baptism,  is 
C}rprian,  Bishop  of  Carthage.  In  the  year  253,  he, 
with  sixty-six  bishops,  were  assembled  in  council; 
and  Fidus,  a  country  bishop,  wrote  to  them,  in- 
quiring whether  an  infant  might  be  baptized  before 
it  was  eight  days  old.  To  this  inquiry,  they  replied 
as  follows : 

"  We  read  your  letter,  most  dear  brother,  in  which 
you  write  to  one  Victor,  a  priest,  etc.  But  as  to  the 
case  of  infants,  whereas  you  judge  that  they  must 
not  be  baptized  within  two  or  three  days  after  they 
are  born ;  and  that  the  rule  of  circumcision  is  to  be 


276  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

observed,  so  that  none  should  be  baptized  and  sanc- 
tified before  the  eighth  day  after  he  is  born  ;  we  were 
all  in  the  assembly  of  the  contrary  opinion.  For  as 
for  what  you  thought  fitting  to  be  done,  there  was 
not  one  that  was  of  your  mind,  but  all  of  us,  on  the 
contrary,  judged  that  the  grace  and  mercy  of  God  is 
to  be  denied  to  no  person  that  is  born.5'  *  Dr. 
Grale,  who  sought  to  deprive  us  of  the  testimony  of 
Origen,  confesses  that  Cyprian  "  does  plainly  enough 
speak  of  infant  baptism,  as  practiced  in  Africa  in 
his  time.'5  Here,  then,  within  one  hundred  and 
fifty  years  of  the  apostles,  we  find  infant  baptism 
universally  practiced  in  Africa,  and  regarded  as  of 
divine  authority,  by  Cyprian,  one  of  the  greatest 
men  in  the  church.  Observe  the  character  of 
the  question  put  by  Fidus — not  whether  infants 
should  be  baptized — a  matter  about  which  there  was 
no  dispute,  but  whether  their  baptism  should  be 
delayed  till  the  eighth  day.  Let  it  be  remarked, 
too,  that  Cyprian  and  Origen  were  cotemporaries, 
the  former  having  become  Bishop  of  Carthage, 
A.  D.  248,  and  the  latter  having  died  about  the 
year  254.  So  that  as  infant  baptism  certainly  pre- 
vailed in  Africa  A.  D.  253,  Origen  was  undoubtedly 
a  Pedo-baptist. 

But  if  infant  baptism  had  prevailed   in  Africa, 
and  not  in  other  parts  of  the  church,  this  difference 

*  Wall's  Hist.,  v.  1,  p.  129. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  277 

must  have  been  noticed  by  the  winters  of  that  age  ; 
and  some  controversy  must  have  resulted.  It  is  not 
pretended,  however,  that  this  decision  o£  the  coun- 
cil caused  any  controversy ;  nor  have  anti-pedo- 
baptists  been  able  to  find  the  slightest  trace  of 
difference  of  sentiment  in  the  church  in  the  third 
century. 

We  appeal  now  to  the  testimony  of  Jerome  and 
Augustine,  two  of  the  most  learned  and  eminent 
ministers  in  the  church,  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
fourth  and  beginning  of  the  fifth  centuries.  I  will 
first  quote  a  passage  from  the  writings  of  Jerome. 

"  This  is  said  of  those  that  have  understanding  of 
such  as  he  was,  of  whom  it  is  written  in  the  Gospel, 
'  He  is  of  age,  let  him  speak  for  himself.'  But  he 
that  is  a  child,  and  thinks  as  a  child,  (till  such 
time  as  he  come  to  years  of  discretion,  etc.,)  his 
good  deeds,  as  well  as  his  evil  deeds,  are  imputed 
to  his  parents.  Unless  you  will  think  the  children 
of  Christians  are  themselves  only  under  the  guilt  of 
the  sin,  if  they  do  not  receive  baptism  :  and  that  the 
wickedness  is  not  imputed  to  those  also  who  would  not 
give  it  them,  especially  at  that  time,  when  they  that 
were  to  receive  it,  could  make  no  opposition  to  the 
receiving  of  it." 

Augustine  says  :  "  Men  are  wont  to  ask  this  ques- 
tion  also  :   <  What  good  the    sacrament   of    Christ's 
baptism  does  to  infants  ?     Whereas,  after  they  have 
received  it,  they  often  die  before  they  are  able  to 
24* 


278  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

understand  anything  of  it.  As  to  which  matter,  it 
is  piously  and  truly  believed,  that  the  faith  of  those 
by  whom  the  child  is  offered  to  be  consecrated,  pro- 
fits the  child.  And  this  the  most  sound  authority 
of  the  church,  does  command,  etc.  Tor  how  could 
the  widow's  son  be  holpen  by  his  own  faith,  whereof 
being  dead,  he  could  have  none  ?  And  yet  his 
mother's  faith  was  useful  for  his  being  raised  to  life 
again."  In  his  book  against  the  Donatists,  he  says  : 
"  And  as  the  thief,  who  by  necessity  went  without 
baptism,  was  saved  ;  because,  by  his  piety  he  had  it 
spiritually;  so  when  baptism  is  had,  though  the 
party,  by  necessity,  go  without  that  [faith]  which 
the  thief  had,  yet  he  is  saved.  Which  the  whole 
body  of  the  church  holds,  as  delivered  to  them,  in 
the  case  of  little  infants  baptized :  who  certainly 
cannot  yet  believe  with  the  heart  unto  righteousness 
or  confess  with  the  mouth  to  salvation,  as  the  thief 
could;  nay,  by  their  crying  and  noise,  while  the 
sacrament  is  administering,  they  disturb  the  holy 
mysteries :  and  yet  no  Christian  man  will  say  they 
are  baptized  to  no  purpose.  And  if  any  one  do  ask 
for  divine  authority  in  this  matter ;  though  that 
which  the  whole  church  practices,  and  which  has  not 
been  instituted  by  councils,  but  was  ever  in  use,  is 
very  reasonably  believed  to  be  no  other  than  a  thing 
delivered  by  authority  of  the  apostles  :  yet  we  may, 
besides,  make  a  true  estimate,  how  much  the  sacra- 
ment of  baptism  does  avail  infants,  by  the  circum- 
cision which  God's  former  people  received. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  279 

1  'For  Abraham  was  justified  before  he  received  that, 
and  Cornelius  was  indued  with  the  Holy  Spirit  before 
he  was  baptized ;  and  yet  the  apostle  says  of  Abra- 
ham, that  he  received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  a 
seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith,  by  which  he 
had  in  heart  believed,  and  it  had  been  counted  to 
him  for  righteousness.  Why,  then,  was  he  com- 
manded thenceforward  to  circumcise  all  his  male 
infants  on  the  eighth  day,  when  they  could  not  yet 
believe  with  the  heart,  that  it  might  be  counted  to 
them  for  righteousness ;  but  for  this  reason,  be- 
cause the  sacrament  itself  is  of  itself  of  great  im- 
port? Therefore,  as  in  Abraham,  the  righteousness 
of  faith  went  before,  and  circumcision,  the  seal  of 
the  righteousness  of  faith,  came  after,  so  in  Cor- 
nelius the  spiritual  sanctification  by  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  went  before,  and  the  sacrament  of  re- 
generation by  the  law  of  baptism  came  after.  And 
as  in  Isaac,  who  was  circumcised  the  eighth  day,  the 
seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith  went  before,  and 
(as  he  was  a  follower  of  his  father's  faith)  the 
righteousness  itself,  the  seal  whereof  had  gone  before 
in  his  infancy,  came  after:  so  in  infants  baptized, 
the  sacrament  of  regeneration  goes  before,  and  (if 
they  put  in  practice  the  Christian  religion)  conver- 
sion of  the  heart,  the  mystery  whereof  went  before 
in  their  body,  comes  after." 

Again,  commenting  on  Rom.,  5:  12-14,  he  says 
the  language  of  Paul  i '  can  have  no  other  sense  but 


280  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

such  an  one  by  -which  it  has  come  to  pass,  that  the 
whole  church  has  from  of  old  constantly  held  that 
fidel  (or  baptized)  infants  do  obtain  remission  of 
original  sin  by  the  baptism  of  Christ."  He  then 
quotes  the  letter  of  Cyprian  to  Fidus,  and  proceeds 
in  the  following  language  : 

u  And  now  some  people,  by  the  boldness  of  I 
know  not  what  disputing  humor,  go  about  to  repre- 
sent that  as  uncertain  which  our  ancestors  made  use 
of  as  a  most  certain  thing,  whereby  to  resolve  some 
things  that  seemed  uncertain.  For  when  this  began 
first  to  be  disputed,  I  know  not ;  but  this  I  know, 
that  holy  Jerome,  whose  pains  and  fame  for  excel- 
lent learning  in  ecclesiastical  matters  is  at  this  day 
so  great,  does  also  make  use  of"'  this  as  a  thing  most 
certain,  to  resolve  some  questions  in  his  book,"  etc. 
Then,  quoting  some  passages  from  Jerome,  he  says : 
"  K  we  could  with  convenience  come  to  ask  that 
most  learned  man,  how  many  writers  of  Christian 
dissertations  and  interpreters  of  holy  Scripture  in 
both  languages  could  he  recount,  who  from  the  time 
that  Christ's  church  has  been  founded,  have  held  no 
otherwise,  have  received  no  other  doctrine  from  their 
predecessors,  or  left  any  other  to  their  successors  ; 
for  my  part,  (though  my  reading  is  much  less  than 
his,)  I  clo  not  remember  that  I  ever  heard  any 
other  thing  from  any  Christians  that  received  the 
Old  and  New  Testament — neither  from  such  as  were 
of  the  Catholic  church,  nor  from  such  as  belonged 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  281 

to  any  sect  or  schism.  I  do  not  remember  that  I 
ever  read  otherwise  in  any  writer  that  I  could  ever 
find  treating  of  these  matiers,  that  followed  the 
canonical  Sciptures,  or  did  pretend  to  do  so. 
From  whence  this  trouble  is  started  up  upon  us,  I 
know  not;  but  a  little  while  ago,  when  I  was  there 
at  Carthage,  I  just  cursorily  heard  some  transient 
discourse  of  some  people  that  were  talking,  that 
infants  are  not  baptized  for  that  reason  that  they 
may  receive  remission  of  sins,  but  that  they  may 
be  sanctified  in  Christ,"  etc.  Wall's  History,  v.  1, 
ch.  xv. 

The  testimony  of  these  two  eminent  men,  Jerome 
and  Augustine,  proves  beyond  all  question,  not  only 
that  in  their  day  the  doctrine  and  the  practice  of  in- 
fant baptism  prevailed  universally  amongst  all  sects, 
but  that  it  was  not  known  or  believed  that  there  had 
ever  been  any  anti-pedo-baptists. 

The  testimony  of  Pelagius  is,  if  possible,  still 
more  conclusive.  He  denied  the  doctrine  of  orig- 
inal sin ;  and  as  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism 
was  conclusively  urged  by  Augustine  in  proof  of 
original  sin,  it  was  his  interest,  if  possible,  to  prove 
infant  baptism  to  be  an  innovation.  In  his  letter  to 
Innocent,  of  Rome,  he  says  :  u  Men  slander  me,  as 
if  I  denied  the  sacrament  of  baptism  to  infants,  or 
did  promise  the  kingdom  of  heaven  to  some  persons, 
without  the  redemption  of  Christ,  which  is  a  thing 
that  I  never  heard,  no  not  even  any  wicked  heretic, 
say." 


282  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

I  have  not  appealed  to  these  early  Christian  wri- 
ters, either  as  interpreters  of  Scripture,  or  to  ascer- 
tain their  views  of  the  nature  and  design  of  baptism. 
I  have  simply  called  them  up  as  witnesses  to  prove 
a  fact,  viz :  that  in  their  time,  and  as  far  back  as 
their  information  extended,  infant  baptism  was  prac- 
ticed universally,  and  was  as  universally  believed 
to  be  sustained  by  apostolic  authority.  Their  tes- 
timony proves,  beyond  all  question,  the  following 
facts,  viz  : 

1.  That  for  the  first  four  hundred  years  after 
Christ,  not  one  writer  or  one  individual  could  be 
found,  who  held  that  infant  baptism  is  unscrip- 
tural. 

2.  That  during  the  same  period,  not  one  individ- 
ual denied  that  infant  baptism  had  been  practiced  by 
the  entire  church  from  the  time  of  the  apostles. 

3.  That  it  was  common  for  the  most  distinguished 
Christian  writers  to  adduce  the  universally  admitted 
doctrine  of  infant  baptism,  as  a  conclusive  argument 
in  favor  of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin. 

Now,  let  us  suppose  that  the  apostles  were  anti- 
pedo-baptists,  and  all  the  churches  planted  by  them, 
of  the  same  faith.  Those  churches  were  planted  in 
countries  widely  separated  from  each  other,  speaking 
different  languages,  and  having  little  intercourse,  in 
Asia,  in  Greece,  in  Gaul,  in  Africa.  The  Apostle 
John  lived  to  the  close  of  the  first  century.  Until 
his  death,  the  churches,  of  course,  must  have  con- 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  283 

tinued  to  be  anti-pedo-baptist.  Let  us  suppose,  that 
at  the  close  of  the  first  century,  there  began  to  be 
tendencies  toward  infant  baptism.  Now,  let  me  ask 
the  candid  reader  two  questions,  viz  :  1st.  How  long 
a  time  would  have  been  required  for  all  the  churches, 
in  all  countries,  to  have  been  converted  to  the  belief 
and  practice  of  infant  baptism?  Remember,  inter- 
course between  the  different  parts  of  the  church  was 
necessarily  limited.  2d.  Would  it  have  been  possi- 
ble for  a  change  so  important  and  so  palpable  to 
have  taken  place  in  the  faith  and  practice  of  the 
churches,  and  to  have  become  universal,  without  the 
least  controversy,  and  without  leaving  the  slightest 
trace  of  any  disagreement?  If  such  a  thing  did 
happen,  it  stands  as  a  miracle  in  history,  having 
nothing  else  to  match  it !  It  does  seem  to  me,  that 
the  only  rational  conclusion  to  which  we  can  come 
from  the  testimony  of  history,  is,  that  infant  bap- 
tism was  taught  and  practiced  by  the  apostles  of 
Christ. 

But  it  is  objected,  that  there  is  the  same  evidence 
in  favor  of  infant  communion,  as  of  infant  bap- 
tism. But  this  is  not  true.  This  argument  was  urged 
by  Alexander  Campbell,  in  the  Lexington  Debate  ; 
and  it  is  reasonable  to  believe,  that  on  that  occa- 
sion he  brought  foward  the  strongest  evidence  that 
can  be  found.  He  quoted  from  Cyprian  the  fol- 
lowing: "I  will  tell  you  what  happened  in  my  own 
presence.     The  parents  of  a  certain  little  girl,  run- 


284  1NFAOT  BAPTISM. 

ning  out  of  town  with  flight,  had  forgot  to  take  any 
care  of  their  child,  whom  they  left  in  the  keeping  of 
a  nurse.  The  nurse  had  carried  her  to  the  magis- 
trates :  they,  because  she  was  too  little  to  eat  the  flesh, 
gave  her  to  eat,  before  the  idol,  some  of  the  bread 
mixed  with  wine,  which  had  been  left  of  the  sacrifice 
of  those  wretches.  Since  that  time,  her  mother 
took  her  home.  But  she  was  no  more  capable  of 
declaring  and  telling  the  crime  committed,  than  she 
had  been  before  of  understanding  or  of  hindering 
it.  So  it  happened  that  once  when  I  was  adminis- 
tering, her  mother,  ignorant  of  what  had  been  done, 
brought  her  along  with  her.  But  the  girl  being 
among  the  saints,  could  not,  with  any  quietness,  hear 
the  prayers  said,  but  sometimes  fell  into  weeping, 
and  sometimes  into  convulsions,  with  the  uneasiness 
of  her  mind  ;  and  her  ignorant  soul,  as  under  a 
wreck,  declared  by  such  tokens  as  it  could,  the  con- 
science of  the  fact  in  those  tender  years.  And  when 
the  service  was  ended,  and  the  deacon  went  to  give 
the  cup  to  those  that  were  present,  and  the  others 
received  it',  and  her  turn  came,  the  girl,  by  a  divine 
instinct,  turned  away  her  face,  shut  her  mouth,  and 
refused  the  cup,"  etc. 

Now,  it  is  truly  remarkable,  that  this  passage 
should  be  cited  to  prove  the  practice  of  infant 
communion  ;  for  Cyprian  speaks  of  a  little  girl,  old 
enough  to  hear  and  understand  prayers,  not  of  an 
infant.     It  is  impossible  to  determine  how  old  she 


IXFAST  BAPTISE.  285 

was,  when  she  partook  of  the  pagan  sacrifice,  or  how 
long  after  that  it  was  that  the  occurrence  here  narrated 
took  place.  Dr.  Wall  concludes,  with  good  reason, 
that  she  was  not  less  than  four  or  five  years  old, 
And  he  states  this  important  fact,  that  "  before  the 
year  412,  there  is  no  author  produced  but  St.  Cy- 
prian" in  favor  of  infant  communion.  Tertullian, 
though  he  opposed  infant  baptism,  said  not  a  word 
against  infant  communion.  If  such  a  thing  had 
existed,  would  be  not  have  opposed  it  even  more 
strongly  than  he  opposed  the  baptism  of  infants  ? 
The  learned  Origen  testifies  to  the  universal  preva- 
lence of  infant  baptism,  but  says  nothing  of  infant 
communion.  The  matter,  then,  stands  thus  :  1.  The 
evidence  is  conclusive,  that  within  one  hundred  years 
after  the  death  of  the  Apostle  John,  infant  baptism 
not  only  existed,  but  was  universally  believed  to  be 
of  divine  authority.  2.  There  is  no  evidence  for 
the  practice  of  infant  communion  for  four  hundred 
years  after  Christ.  It  is  easy  to  see  how  this  last 
practice  originated  in  connection  with  the  doctrine 
of  the  saving  efficacy  of  the  sacraments ;  but  it 
seems  to  me  impossible  that  infant  baptism  could 
have  originated  so  early,  and  have  become  so  uni- 
versal as  we  find  it  in  the  church,  unless  it  is  of 
divine  authority. 

It  would  be   easy  to   multiply  evidences  to  any 
extent,    that   from   the   fifth   century  down   to   the 
Reformation,  infant  baptism  was  universally  prac- 
25 


286  INFANT .  BAPTISM. 

ticeci ;  but  it  is  unnecessary,  since  the  fact  will  not 
be  denied.  I  propose  to  inquire  particularly  into 
the  faith  of  the  "Waldenses,  who  were  the  witnesses 
for  the  truth  in  the  dark  ages.  For  some  anti-pedo- 
baptists  have  been  disposed  to  deny  that  they  were  in 
favor  of  infant  baptism. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

The  value  of  the  testimony  of  the  Waldenses  in 
favor  of  infant  baptism,  does  not  arise  from  any 
extraordinary  learning  possessed  by  them,  but  from 
the  fact  that  they  rejected  the  errors  of  Popery,  and 
received  the  Scriptures  as  their  only  rule  of  faith  ; 
and  from  the  additional  fact,  that  their  piety  was 
uncommonly  deep  and  pure.  During  a  long  period 
of  darkness  and  superstition,  they  bore  a  suffering 
testimony  to  the  pure  doctrines  of  the  Gospel.  The 
most  cruel  and  protracted  persecutions  could  not 
drive  them  from  the  cross  of  Christ,  or  induce  them 
to  connive  at  the  errors  of  Popery.  Anti-pedo- 
baptists  have  been  fond  of  representing  infant  bap- 
tism as  a  Popish  error,  even  as  the  prolific  cause  of 
all  the  corruptions  of  Rome.  But  here  we  find  a 
people,  whose  history  runs  back  many  centuries 
beyond  the  Reformation  —  a  people  adopting  the 
Protestant  rule  of  faith,  and  fearless  in  their  denim- 


INFANT  BAPTISE.  287 

ciations  of  the  errors  of  Popery — a  people  regarded 
by  all  evangelical  denominations  as  witnesses  for  the 
truth  in  the  dark  ages.  It  is  interesting  and  import- 
ant to  inquire  how  they  understood  the  Scriptures  on 
the  subject  of  infant  baptism. 

Whether  they  arose  under  the  preaching  of  Peter 
Waldo,  an  eminently  pious  merchant  of  Lyons,  in 
the  twelfth  century ;  or  whether,  as  some  think,  they 
may  be  traced  to  the  apostolic  age,  I  shall  not  now 
inquire.  That  they  were  pedo -baptists,  is  clear  be- 
yond question,  from  the  following  considerations  : 

1.  It  is  admitted  that  all  the  Waldenses  are  now 
Pedo-baptists,  and  that  they  believe  their  ancestors 
always  to  have  held  the  same  faith.  Rev.  Robert 
Baird,  D.  D.,  who  has  repeatedly  visited  this  inter- 
esting people,  says  :  "  On  the  subject  of  baptism, 
these  churches  are,  as  has  already  been  intimated, 
Pedo-baptist.  And  their  pastors  have  assured  us, 
that  it  is  their  belief,  founded  on  their  histories  and 
traditions,  that  they  have  ever  been  such  from  their 
earliest  times.  *  They  stated  to  usjhat  if  ever  there 
was  a  time  in  which  they  did  not  baptize  their 
children,  it  was  in  those  ages  of  oppression,  when 
they  were  not  permitted  to  do  it  themselves,  and  they 
would  not  suffer  the  Roman  Catholic  priests  to  ad- 
minister that  ordinance,  inasmuch  as  they  added  to 
it  several  superstitious  practices,  which  they  utterly 

*  Prot.  in  Italy,  pp.  397,  398. 


288  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

reject.3'  If  there  ever  was  a  time  when  they  were 
anti-pedo-baptists,  every  trace  of  such  sentiments 
has  been  lost,  and  every  evidence  of  a  change  from 
Baptist  to  Pedo-baptist  views,  has   been  obliterated. 

It  has  been  strenuously  contended,  that  at  the 
time  of  the  Reformation  of  the  sixteenth  century, 
through  the  influence  of  the  reformers,  and  in  order 
to  escape  persecution,  they  adopted  Pedo-baptist 
sentiments.  But  at  that  time  the  eyes  of  all  Chris- 
tendom were  turned  upon  them ;  and  it  is  impossible 
that  such  a  change,  if  it  had  occurred,  could  have 
escaped  the  notice  of  the  writers  of  that  age.  Yet 
no  historian  and  no  writer  mentions  anything  of  the 
kind  ;  nor  does  any  historian  of  modern  times  pre- 
tend to  have  found  evidence  of  such  a  change.  Even 
Jones,  the  Baptist  historian,  gives  not  the  slightest 
intimation,  that  their  faith  had  undergone  any  such 
change.  It  is,  therefore,  certain,  that  the  alleged 
change  never  occurred. 

2.  That  the  Waldenses  were  Pedo-baptists  at  the 
time  of  the  Reformation,  is  clear  from  their  entire 
agreement  in  faith  with  the  reformers.  Jones  says  : 
"  An  impartial  review  of  the  doctrinal  sentiments 
maintained  by  the  Waldenses,  the  discipline,  order, 
and  worship  of  their  churches,  as  well  as  their  gen- 
eral deportment  and  manner  of  life,  not  to  mention 
their  determined  and  uniform  opposition  to  the  church 
of  Rome,  affords  abundant  evidence  of  the  similarity 
of  their  views  and  practices  to  those  held  by  Luther, 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  289 

Calvin,  and  the  other  illustrious  characters,  whose 
labors,  in  the  sixteenth  century,  contributed  so  emi- 
nently to  effect  the  glorious  reformation.  Most  of  the 
Catholic  writers,  who  lived  about  the  time  of  the  Re- 
formation and  in  the  age  which  succeeded  it,  clearly 
saw  this  coincidence  between  the  principles  of  the 
Waldenses  and  those  of  the  reformers,  and  remarked 
it  in  their  works."  The  same  historian  says  :  "  Lin- 
danus,  a  Catholic  bishop,  of  the  see  of  Ghent,  who 
wrote  in  defence  of  the  tenets  of  the  church  of 
Rome,  about  1550,  terms  Calvin  the  inheritor  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Waldenses."  He  also  quotes  Meze- 
ray,  the  celebrated  historiographer  of  France,  in  his 
abridgment  of  Chronology,  as  saying  :  "  They  held 
nearly  the  same  opinions  as  those  who  are  now  called 
Caivinists."  He  says  further,  Gualtier,  a  Jesuitical 
monk,  in  his  chronographical  tables,  drew  up  a 
catalogue  consisting  of  seven- and- twenty  particulars, 
in  which  he  shows  that  the  principles  of  the  Wal- 
denses and  those  of  the  Caivinists,  coincided  "with 
each  other."  *  Now,  it  is  impossible,  if  the  Wal- 
denses had  rejected  infant  baptism,  and  held  that 
it  is  not  valid  baptism,  that  a  difference  so  important 
between  them  and  the  reformers  should  have  passed 
unnoticed. 

But  the  evidence  is   yet  stronger.     Jones   says: 
"  Luther,  in  the  year  1530,  published  the  Confes- 


*  Church  History,  p.  357. 

25* 


290  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

sions  of  the  Waldenses,  to  which  he  wrote  a  preface. 
In  that  preface,  he  candidly  acknowledges,  that  in 
the  days  of  his  popery  he  had  hated  the  Waldenses, 
as  persons  who  were  consigned  over  to  perdition. 
But  having  understood  from  their  confessions  and 
writings  the  piety  of  their  faith,  he  perceived  that 
those  good  men  had  been  greatly  wronged,  whom 
the  Pope  had  condemned  as  heretics,  for  that,  on  the 
contrary,  they  were  rather  entitled  to  the  praise  due 
to  holy  martyrs.  He  adds,  that  among  them  he  had 
found  one  thing  worthy  of  admiration,  a  thing  un- 
heard of  in  the  Popish  church,  that,  laying  aside  the 
doctrines  of  men,  they  meditated  in  the  law  of  God, 
day  and  night ;  and  that  they  were  expert,  and  even 
well  versed,  in  the  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures. 
*  *  *  Moreover,  having  read  the  Walclensian 
Confessions,  he  returned  thanks  to  God  for  the  great 
light  which  it  had  pleased  him  to  bestow  upon  that 
people,  rejoicing  that  all  cause  of  suspicion  being 
removed  which  had  existed  between  them  and  the 
reformed,  they  were  now  brought  together  into  one 
"sheepfold,  under  the  Chief  Shepherd  and  Bishop  of 
souls."  f 

The  Confessions  to  which  Luther  wrote  a  preface, 
and  which  he  so  fully  endorsed,  showed,  of  course, 
not  only  the  faith  of  the  Waldenses  at  the  time  he 
wrote,  but  in  preceding  generations  ;  for  it  is  not  pre- 

t  Church  History,  p.  353. 


INFANT  BAPTISE.  291 

tended,  that  they  had  adopted  any  neiv  Confessions 
differing  from  those  of  their  forefathers.  And  it  is 
certain,  that  Luther  never  would  have  given  such  an 
unqualified  endorsement  to  anti-jiedo-bajitist  con- 
fessions ;  nor  could  he  have  said,  that  "  all  cause  of 
suspicion"  was  removed,  and  they  were  "  brought  to- 
gether into  one  sheepfold,"  if  the  "Waldenses  had  not 
acknowledged  the  validity  and  scriptural  character  of 
infant  baptism.  It  is,  there' ore,  certain  that  in  the 
beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century,  they  were  Pedo- 
baptists,  and  that  their  Confessions  and  writings, 
endorsed  by  Luther,  proved  them  ever  to  have  been 
of  this  faith. 

That  the  Waldenses  were  Pedo-baptists,  is  further 
proved  by  a  declaration  of  their  faith,  published  by 
the  Waldenses  of  the  Valleys  of  Maties  and  Meane, 
and  the  Marquisate  of  Saluces,  made  in  the  year 
1603.  In  this,  they  declare  their  agreement  in  faith 
with  the  reformed  churches  of  France,  Switzerland, 
Germany,  Geneva,  England,  Scotland,  Denmark, 
etc  ;  and  they  say:  u  Beseeching,  in  the  meantime, 
(in  the  middle  of  our  exile  and  calamity,)  the  re- 
formed churches  to  hold  us,  and  acknowledge  us,  to 
be  true  members  thereof,  being  willing  to  seal  with 
our  blood  (if  God  will  have  it  so)  the  confessions  of 
faith  made  and  published  by  them ;  which  we  ac- 
knowledge in  all  things,  and  throughout,  conformable 
to  the  doctrine  taught  and  written  by  the  holy  apos- 
tles,   and   therefore    truly  apostolical."     And  they 


292  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

declare,  that  this  faith  had  been  held  and  taught  by 
their  forefathers  "  time  out  of  mind,  and  from 
father  to  son."  * 

In  the  year  1535,  the  Waldenses  of  Provence  and 
Dauphine  assembled  at  Angrongne,  and  after  hear- 
ing read  the  letters  from  the  reformers,  sent  by 
George  Morell  and  Peter  Masson,  whom  they  had 
sent  to  confer  with  them,  they  adopted  a  confession 
of  their  faith,  which,  they  declare,  was  "  conform- 
able to  the  doctrine,  which  hath  been  taught  them 
from  the  father  to  the  sonne  for  these  many  hundred 
yeeres,  and  taken  out  of  the  word  of  God."  The 
seventeenth  article  of  this  Confession  is  as  fol- 
lows :  "  Touching  the  matter  of  the  sacraments,  it 
hath  been  concluded  by  the  holy  Sciptures,  that  we 
have  but  two  sacramental  signs,  the  which  Christ 
Jesus  hath  left  unto  us ;  the  one  is  Baptism,  the 
other  the  Eucharist,  which  we  receive,  to  show  what 
our  perseverance  in  the  faith  is,  as  we  have  promised 
when  we  were  baptized,  being  little  infants ;  as 
also  in  remembrance  of  that  great  benefit  which 
Jesus  Christ  hath  done  unto  us,  when  he  died  for 
our  redemption,  washing  us  with  his  most  precious 
blood."t 

"  In  the  year  1508,"  says  Jones,  "  about  ten 
years   before   Luther  began   the   Reformation,   and 

*  Perrin's  History,  B.  2,  ch.  5. 
j  Perrin's  History,  B  2,  ch.  4. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  293 

during  the  reign  of  Ladislaus,  King  of  Hungary  and 
Bohemia,  a  dreadful  persecution  broke  out  against 
that  class  of  his  subjects,  who  held  the  principles 
of  the  Waldenses.  The  latter,  to  justify  themselves 
from  several  charges  erroneously  imputed  to  them  by 
their  adversaries,  drew  up  an  apology  addressed  to 
the  King,  which  was  still  extant  in  the  time  of 
Perrin,  and  as  he  handed  down  to  us  the  substance 
of  it,  I  shall  here  extract  a  few  of  the  more  inter- 
esting particulars."  *  The  apology  here  mentioned 
by  Jones,  is  contained  in  Perrin's  history  of  the 
Waldenses  ;  and  it  settles  the  question,  whether  they 
were  Pedo-baptists.  "  The  fourth  calumny,"  says 
Perrin,  "  was  touching  baptism,  which,  it  is  said, 
they  denied  to  little  infants  ;  but  from  this  imputa- 
tion, they  quit  themselves  as  followeth  :  '  The  time 
and  place  of  those  that  are  to  be  baptized  is  not 
ordained,  but  the  charity  and  edification  of  the 
church  and  congregation  must  serve  for  a  rule  there- 
in, etc.  And,  therefore,  they  to  whom  the  children 
were  allied,  brought  their  infanfs  to  be  baptized,  as 
their  parents,  or  any  other  whom  God  had  made 
charitable  in  that  kind."  t  It  is  to  be  regretted, 
that  Jones  did  not  think  proper  to  publish  this  inter- 
esting part  of  the  apology.  It  proves,  that  before 
the  days  of  Luther,  the  Waldenses  were  firm  believers 
in  the  doctrine  of  infant  bantism. 


*  Church  History,  p.  341.  f  Book  1;  ch.  4. 


294  IXFAXT  BAPTISM. 

They  were  sometimes  charged  with  rejecting  infant 
baptism  ;  and,  as  we  have  seen,  they  treated  the  charge 
as  a  calumny.  Louis  XII,  King  of  France,  hearing 
many  severe  charges  made  against  them,  sent  Adam 
Fumee  and  a  doctor  of  Sorbon  to  visit  those  of 
Provence,  and  inquire  into  the  truth  of  the  charges. 
"  They  visited  all  their  parishes  and  temples,  and 
found  neither  images,  nor  so  much  as  the  least 
show  of  any  ornaments  belonging  to  the  Masses 
and  ceremonies  of  the  church  of  Rome,  much  less 
any  such  crimes  as  were  imposed  upon  them,  but 
rather  that  they  kept  their  Sabbaths  duely,  causing 
their  children  to  be  baptized  according  to  the  order 
of  the  primitive  church,  teaching  them  the  articles 
of  the  Christian  faith  and  commandments  of  God."* 
Jones,  the  Baptist  historian,  in  quoting  this  lan- 
guage of  Perrin,  strangely  alters  the  phraseology, 
and  instead  of  the  phrase,  "  causing  their  children 
to  be  baptized,"  he  has  it,  "  observed  the  ordinance 
of  baptism,  according  to  the  primitive  church."  t 
This  is  taking  a  most  unwarranted  liberty  with  his- 
tory. We  might  suppose  that  Jones  had  quoted 
some  other  author,  but  he  refers  directly  to  Perrin 
as  his  authority.  Certainly,  if  the  Waldenses  had 
been  anti-pedo-baptists,  sufficient  evidence  could 
have  been  found  without  resorting  to  such  means. 

*  Perrin's  History,  B.  1,  ch.  5. 
f  Church  History,  p.  348. 


INFANT  BAPTISE.  295 

In  addition  to  the  testimony  already  given,  I  need 
only  state  the  two  following  facts,  viz  : 

1.  The  YvTaldenses,  whilst  they  boldly  testified,  as 
their  writings  show,  against  all  the  corruptions  of 
Popery,  never  mentioned  infant  baptism  amongst 
those  corruptions.  If  they  had  believed,  with  modern 
anti-pedo-baptists,  that  infant  baptism  is  not  only  a 
Popish  corruption,  but  the  chief  of  the  corruptions 
of  Rome,  would  they  have  passed  it  in  silence  ? 

But  it  is  remarkable,  that  they  bore  a  distinct 
testimony,  not  only  against  the  corruptions  of  bap- 
tism, but  against  the  additions  made  by  Rome  to  in- 
fant baptism.  In  the  Doctrine  of  the  Waldenses  and 
Albigenses,  as  given  by  Perrin,  we  find  the  follow- 
ing :  "  The  things  that  are  not  necessary  to  baptism, 
are  the  exorcisms,  the  breathings,  the  sign  of  the 
cross  upon  the  infant,  either  the  breast  or  the  fore- 
head, the  salt  put  into  the  mouth,  the  spittle  into 
the  ears  and  nostrils,  the  unction  of  the  breast,  the 
monk's  cowl,  the  anointing  of  the  chrism  upon  the 
head,  and  divers  like  things,  consecrated  by  the 
bishop,  as  also  the  putting  of  the  taper  in  his  hands, 
clothing  it  with  a  white  vestment,  the  blessing  of  the 
water,  the  dipping  of  it  thrice  in  the  water  :  all 
these  things  used  in  the  administration  of  the  sacra- 
ment, are  not  necessary,  they  neither  being  of  the 
substance,  nor  requisite  in  the  sacrament  of  baptism, 
from  which  things  many  take  occasion  of  error  and 
superstition,   rather    than   edification    to   salvation. 


296  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

Now,  this  baptism  is  visible  and  material,  which 
maketk  the  party  neither  good  nor  evil,  as  it  ap- 
peareth  in  the  Scripture,  by  Simon  Magus  and  St. 
Paul.  And  whereas,  baptism  is  administered  in  a 
full  congregation  of  the  faithful,  it  is  to  the  end 
that  he  that  is  received  into  the  church,  should  be 
reputed  and  held  of  all  for  a  Christian  brother,  and 
that  all  the  congregation  might  pray  for  him,  that  he 
may  be  a  Christian  in  heart,  as  he  is  outwardly 
esteemed  to  be  a  Christian.  And  for  this  cause  it 
is,  that  we  present  our  children  in  baptism,  which 
they  ought  to  do,  to  whom  the  children  are  nearest, 
as  their  parents,  and  they  to  whom  God  hath  given 
this  charity."  * 

In  the  "  Book  of  Anti-christ,"  which,  according 
to  Perrin,  dates  back  as  far  as  A.  D.  1120,  we  find 
the  following:  "  The  third  mark  of  Anti-christ  con- 
sist eth  in  this,  that  he  attributeth  the  renewing  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  to  an  outward  dead  faith,  and  bap- 
tizeth  children  into  that  faith,  and  that  by  it,  we 
have  the  baptism  and  the  regeneration,"  etc.  This 
passage  has  been  strangely  relied  on  to  prove  the 
Waldenses  opposed  to  infant  baptism  ;  but  it  is  per- 
fectly evident,  that  the  objection  is  not  to  baptizing 
infants,  but  to  the  "  dead  faith,"  and  to  the  sanc- 
tifying efficacy  ascribed  to  the  ordinance.  And 
accordingly,    in    the   fourth   chapter   of    this   same 


Book  1,  ch.  6. 


IXFAXT  BAPTISM.  297 

book,  we  read  as  follows  :  "  The  tilings  that  are  not 
necessary  in  the  administration  of  baptism,  are  the 
exorcisms,  breathings,  the  sign  of  the  cross  upon  the 
forehead  and  breast  of  the  infant,  the  salt  put  into 
his  mouth,"  etc. 

These  passages  from  their  writings,  prove  that 
the  Waldenses  believed  in  the  doctrine  of  infant 
baptism,  and  objected  only  to  the  superstitious  addi- 
tions oc  the  church  of  Rome, 

2.  Those  of  their  enemies  who  were  best  acquainted 
with  them,,  never  charged  them  with  rejecting  infant 
baptism.  Jones,  who  was  most  likely  to  find  such 
charges,  if  made  by  credible  writers,  gives  the  testi- 
mony of  "  two  noted  authors  who  have  left  us  a  parti- 
cular account  of  the  faith  and  practices  of  the  Wal- 
denses in  Bohemia,  during  the  14th  century,  at  which 
time  their  numbers  had  increased  very  considerably, 
and  they  had  to  sustain  the  fire  of  papal  persecu- 
tion." The  first  is  an  inquisitor  of  the  church  of 
Rome,  who  professed  to  have  "  exact  knowledge  of 
the  Waldenses,  at  whose  trials  he  had  often  assisted, 
in  several  countries."  His  testimony  is  very  import- 
ant. He  says:  "  Concerning  the  sacrament  of  bap- 
tism, they  say,  that  the  catechism  signifies  nothing, 
that  the  absolution  pronounced  over  infants  avails 
them  nothing,  that  the  godfathers  and  godmothers 
do  not  understand  what  they  answer  the  priest.  That 
the  oblation  which  is  called  Al  wogen  is  nothing  but 
a  mere  human  invention.  They  reject  all  exorcisms 
26 


298  INFANT  baptism. 

and  blessings."*  Most  certainly,  the  Waldenses  witn 
whom  this  inquisitor  was  acquainted,  were  Pedo- 
baptists  ;  for  they  made  no  objection  to  the  baptism 
of  infants,  but  only  to  those  superstitious  additions 
to  it,  which  all  evangelical  Pedo-baptists  condemn. 

The  second  witness  brought  forward  by  Jones,  is 
Claudius  Seisselius,  Archbishop  of  Turin,  who  wrote 
a  treatise  against  the  Waldenses  towards  the  close  of 
the  fifteenth  century,  a  little  before  the  time  of  the 
Reformation.  "  His  residence  in  the  very  heart  of 
the  valleys  of  Piedmont,"  says  Jones,  "  must  have 
furnished  him  with  the  best  opportunities  of  becom- 
ing acquainted  with  the  principles  and  practices  of 
his  non- conformist  neighbors,  and  he  has  transmitted 
to  posterity  a  narrative  sufficiently  circumstantial  and 
explicit,  to  enable  any  impartial  person  to  form  a 
tolerably  correct  judgment  of  them."  This  import- 
ant witness  gives  not  the  slightest  intimation,  that 
the  Waldenses  rejected  the  doctrine  of  infant  bap- 
tism, which,  most  certainly  he  would  have  clone,  if 
such  had  been  the  fact. 

It  is  clear,  then,  beyond  all  controversy,  that  the 
Waldenses  were  Pedo-baptists.  Dr.  Wall  thought  it 
possible  that  a  small  sect  from  amongst  them,  called 
Petrobrussians,  rejected  infant  baptism,  on  the 
ground  that  infants  are  incapable  of  salvation. 
But  if  there  was  such  a  sect,  they  soon  passed  away. 

*  Church  History,  p.  324. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  299 

Dr.  Wall,  after  gathering  together  the  evidences 
from  history  on  this  subject,  comes  to  the  following 
conclusion  :  "  Lastly,  as  these  evidences  are  for  the 
first  four  hundred  years,  in  which  there  appears  one 
man,  Tertullian,  who  advised  the  delay  of  infant 
baptism  in  some  cases,  and  one  Gregory,  that  did, 
perhaps,  practice  such  delay  in  the  case  of  his  chil- 
dren, but  no  society  of  men  so  thinking,  or  so  prac- 
ticing, nor  no  one  man  saying  it  was  unlawful  to 
baptize  infants  ;  so  in  the  next  seven  hundred  years, 
there  is  not  so  much  as  one  man  to  be  found,  that 
either  spoke  for,  or  practiced  any  such  delay.  But 
all  the  contrary.  And  when,  in  1130,  one  sect 
among  the  Albigenses,  declared  against  the  baptizing 
of  infants,  as  being  incapable  of  salvation,  the  main 
body  of  that  people  rejected  their  opinion  ;  and  they 
of  them  that  held  that  opinion,  quickly  dwindled 
away  and  disappeared,  there  being  no  more  heard  of 
holding  that  tenet,  till  the  rising  of  the  German  anti- 
pedo-baptists,  anno  1522."  * 

The  argument  from  history,  then,  stands  thus  : 
1st.  It  has  all  the  weight  which  human  testimony 
can  give  it.  Commencing  from  the  present  day,  we 
trace  it  distinctly  up  through  every  age  almost  to 
the  very  days  of  the  apostles.  Not  to  insist  upon 
anything  that  can  be  regarded  as  doubtful,  we  are 
safe   in  saying   (for    all   admit  it)   that  Tertullian 

*  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  v.  2,  ch.  9. 


300  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

speaks  of  infant  baptism.  It,  of  course,  then  ex- 
isted; and  since  he  does  not  intimate,  either  that  it 
was  a  novelty,  or  that  it  was  unseriptural,  but 
speaks  of  it  as  if  he  regarded  it  as  valid,  it  is 
clear,  that  within  one  hundred  years  after  the  death 
of  the  last  apostle,  it  prevailed  universally  in  the 
church,  as  of  divine  authority.  It  does  seem  utterly 
impossible  that  at  so  early  a  day,  it  should  have 
become  so  universal  thoughoat  the  church,  without 
the  least  controversy,  unless  it  was  practiced  by  the 
apostles.  We  can  go  back  in  the  history  of  the 
church  to  a  period  when  there  was  no  Pope,  no 
prayers  to  saints,  no  auricular  confession,  no  celib- 
acy of  the  clergy ;  but  we  cannot  get  back  to  the 
period  when  infant  baptism  commenced. 

2.  It  has  all  the  weight  of  the  testimony  of  that 
people  who,  for  so  many  centuries,  resisted  the 
errors  of  Popery,  and  preached  the  Gospel  in  its 
purity.  Evidently,  they  held  and  practiced  infant 
baptism,  because  they  found  it,  as  they  believed,  in 
the  sacred  Scriptures. 

3.  It  has  all  the  weight  which  is  due  to  the  judg- 
ment of  the  overwhelming  body  of  the  wise  and 
good  in  every  age,  concerning  the  meaning  of  the 
Scriptures.  At  the  end  of  a  discussion  of  three 
centuries,  the  opponents  of  infant  baptism  are  in 
an  exceedingly  small  minority,  and  have  against 
them  the  very  great  majority  of  the  wisest  and  most 
faithful  students  of  God's  word. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  301 


CHAPTER  VII. 


Aftee  all,  it  will  be  asked,  of  what  practical  use 
is  the  baptism  of  the  children  of  believers  ?  The 
question  is  an  important  one,  not  only  for  the  satis- 
faction of  those  who  doubt  or  deny  the  truth  of  the 
doctrine,  but  that  Christian  parents  and  baptized 
children  may  reap  the  benefits  of  the  ordinance. 

1.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  certain  that  the  blessing 
of  God  attends  the  proper  administration  and  recep- 
tion of  every  ordinance  which  he  appoints.  Some 
have  imagined,  that  the  baptism  of  both  adults  and 
infants  is  an  unnecessary  ceremony ;  but  God  knows 
what  is  in  man,  and  He  knows  how  important  ordi- 
nances are  to  growth  in  grace.  It  should  be  enough 
for 'us,  that  He  has  instituted  baptism,  even  if  we 
were  unable  to  see  its  necessity  or  importance. 

2.  The  advantage  of  infant  baptism  may  be  seen 
in  the  influence  it  exerts  upon  the  minds  of  parents. 
There  are  two  difficulties  which  pious  parents  expe- 
rience in  the  religious  training  of  their  children. 
The  first  is  their  proneness  to  neglect  it  ;  the  second 
is  the  discouragements  that  attend  their  efforts  to 
train  them  aright.  Infant  baptism,  to  a  considerable 
extent,  removes  these  difficulties. 

As  to  the  first,  it   cannot  be   doubted  that  if  a 
truthful  man  solemnly  promises  to  attend  to  a  duty, 
he  is  more  likely  to  do  it,  than  if  no  promise  had 
26* 


802  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

been  made.  The  duty  itself  creates  one  obligation, 
and  his  promise  creates  another.  His  promise  he 
regards  as  sacred.  Now,  God  commands  parents 
to  train  up  their  children  in  the  nurture  and  admo- 
nition of  the  Lord ;  and  natural  affection,  together 
with  divine  grace,  prompts  them  to  obey.  Yet  it  is 
a  sad  truth,  that  there  is,  on  the  part  of  many  pro- 
fessedly religious  parents,  great  neglect  of  this  most 
important  duty.  But  God  brings  them  under  a  most 
solemn  promise  to  himself,  that  they  will  be  faithful ; 
and  this  promise  is  sealed  by  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tism. The  ordinance  itself  reminds  parents  of  the 
depravity  of  their  children,  and  of  their  need  of  the 
atonement  of  Christ  and  of  the  sanctifying  influence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Now,  will  any  one  pretend, 
that  a  promise  made  to  the  great  God,  and  sealed 
in  the  most  solemn  manner,  will  exert  no  influence 
in  inducing  parents  to  be  faithful  in  the  use  of  the 
divinely  appointed  means  for  the  conversion  and 
salvation  of  their  children  ?  If  a  promise  made  to 
men  exerts  an  influence,  how  much  more  a  promise 
made  to  God  ? 

But  pious  parents  often  feel  discouraged  by  the 
thoughtlessness  and  waywardness  of  their  children. 
Their  instructions  are  unheeded  ;  and  their  admo- 
tions  and  exhortations  seem  to  fall  powerless  on  the 
ear.  Their  hearts  are  deeply  depraved ;  and  the 
world  is  full  of  temptations,  which  the  enemy  of 
man  and   his   children  well  know  how  to  present. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  308 

How  often  the  hearts  of  pious  parents  sink  within 
them,  as  they  think  of  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of 
the  conversion  of  their  children.  But  as  God  excites 
them  to  faithfulness  by  exacting  from  them  a  solemn 
promise  ;  so  he  encourages  them  in  the  discharge  of 
their  difficult  duties  by  the  promise  of  divine  assist- 
ance. "And  I  will  establish  my  covenant  between 
me  and  thee  and  thy  seed  after  thee  in  their  genera- 
tions for  an  everlasting  covenant ;  to  be  a  God  unto 
thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee."  The  precious 
promise  of  the  covenant-keeping  God  has  sustained 
the  sinking  heart  of  many  a  believing  parent,  has 
stimulated  them  to  perseverance,  and  given  earnest- 
ness and  faith  to  their  prayers  ;  and  it  has  encour- 
aged them  to  hope  in  the  darkest  hour,  even  though 
the  blessing  be  apparently  long  withheld.  There  is 
thus  a  double  advantage  derived  from  infant  bap- 
tism— an  advantage  to  parents,  who  are  excited  and 
encouraged  to  discharge  their  duties,  and  an  advan- 
tage to  the  children,  who  thus  receive  a  more  faithful 
training  and  more  earnest  prayers,  and  are,  con- 
sequently, more  likely  to  be  converted.  Alexander 
Campbell,  years  ago,  expressed,  in  the  Millennial 
Harbinger,  the  decided  opinion,  that  there  is  a 
greater  probability  of  the  salvation  of  the  children 
of  Presbyterians,  than  of  the  children  of  Baptists, 
because  of  the  greater  fidelity  of  the  former  in  the 
religious  training  of  their  children.  This  is  an 
important  concession,  especially  in  view  of  the  great 


304  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

importance  attached  by  Mr.  Campbell  to  baptism. 
No  ordinary  difference  could  have  forced  upon  bis 
mind  such  a  conviction.  Now,  bow  are  we  to  account 
for  the  greater  fidelity  of  Presbyterians  in  the  train- 
ing of  their  children?  The  only  answer  is,  they 
have  entered  into  covenant  with  God  to  train  them 
up  for  his  service  ;  and  they  are  encouraged  by  his 
precious  promise  to  bless  them  in  their  efforts.  If 
there  were  no  other  advantage  derived  from  infant 
baptism,  this  is  of  incalculable  importance. 

3.  Another  advantage  o£  infant  baptism  is  its 
effect  upon  the  minds  of  children.  When  they 
arrive  at  an  age  to  understand  their  relations  and 
obligations,  let  the  parents  explain  to  them,  that  in 
the  days  of  their  infancy  they  entered  into  covenant 
with  God  to  train  them  up  for  his  service — that  they 
had  the  seal  of  his  covenant  and  the  emblem  of  sanc- 
tification  placed  upon  them.  Let  them  feel,  as  they 
grow  up,  that  their  parents  are  acting  under  cove- 
nant engagements  in  restraining  and  instructing 
them.  Let  them  understand  their  obligation  to 
take  upon  themselves  the  duties  of  the  covenant, 
and  avail  themselves  of  God's  promised  blessing. 
Let  them  understand  the  advantages  they  enjoy  as 
children  of  the  covenant,  and  the  responsibilities 
that  rest  upon  them.  Will  considerations  such  as 
these  have  no  influence  in  arousing  their  consciences, 
in  encouraging  them  to  struggle  against  temptation, 
and   in   urging  them   to    an    early  consecration   of 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  305 

themselves  to  the  service  of  God  ?  It  is  evident 
that  infant  baptism  presses  upon  the  minds  of  chil- 
dren powerful  motives  to  early  piety ;  and  there  is 
reason  to  hope,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  will  give  efficacy 
to  those  motives. 

4.  Infant  baptism  is  of  great  advantage,  because 
of  its  influence  on  the  church  in  the  religious  train- 
ing of  the  young.  The  church  is  a  school  of  Christ, 
in  which  disciples  are  to  be  instructed  and  trained 
for  the  service  of  God.  Infant  baptism  recognizes 
the  children  of  believers,  as  entitled  to  the  special 
watch  and  care  of  the  church,  whose  duty  it  is  to  see 
that  they  be  properly  instructed  and  brought  early 
and  constantly  under  the  influence  of  the  means  of 
grace,  and  to  make  them  the  subjects  of  constant 
prayer.  To  baptized  children,  this  care  of  the  church 
is  a  blessing  of  inestimable  value. 

Some,  indeed,  have  supposed  that  as  the  children 
of  believers  are  members  of  the  church,  they  ought, 
when  arrived  at  the  period  of  accountability,  to  be 
required  to  come  to  the  Lord's  table ;  and,  in  case 
of  refusal,  they  should  be  subjected  to  discipline,  as 
other  members.  But  this  is  a  serious  error,  and,  if 
carried  into  practice,  would  be  followed  by  unhappy 
consequences.  Discipline  is  either  admonition,  sus- 
pension, or  excommunication.  That  children  should 
be  instructed,  and  kindly  exhorted  and  admonished  to 
discharge  all  duties,  is  certainly  true ;  but  such 
means  will  prove  far  more  effectual,  we  cannot  but 


306  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

think,  when  employed  otherwise  than  as  ecclesiastical 
discipline.  Suspension  would  only  restrain  them  from 
the  Lord's  table;  but  as,  in  the  case  supposed,  they 
have  not  partaken  of:  the  supper,  and  do  not  propose 
to  do  so,  it  would  have  no  meaning.  Few,  it  is 
presumed,  would  urge  excommunication.  Discipline 
is  to  be  exercised  for  the  neglect  of  duties  volun- 
tarily assumed,  or  for  the  violation  of  obligations 
voluntarily  acknoivledged.  Its  design  is  either 
to  bring  back-sliders  to  repentance,  or  to  protect  the 
church  from  the  reproach  of  having,  in  her  bosom, 
members  who  disgrace  their  profession,  or  for  both 
of  these  ends.  It  is  not,  therefore,  applicable  to 
those  who  have  not  professed  conversion. 

5.  The  history  of  the  church  demonstrates  that 
the  blessing  of  God  has  attended  the  baptism  of  the 
children  of  believers.  In  the  inquiry  how  far  God 
has  blessed  the  children  of  the  church,  we  put  out  of 
view  those  churches  in  which  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tism has  been  corrupted,  or  its  nature  and  design 
have  been  misunderstood.  The  church  of  Rome 
regards  baptism  as  possessing  a  sanctifying  efficacy, 
whether  administered  to  adults  or  to  infants.  She, 
therefore,  administers  the  ordinance,  not  as  the  em- 
blem of  the  Spirit's  influence,  and  as  the  seal  of  the 
covenant  of  grace,  but  in  order  to  regenerate  the 
soul  in  the  very  act  of  administration.  High- church 
Episcopalians  fall  into  the  same  error.  The  blessing 
of  God,  of  course,  will  not  attend  the  perversion 
of  the  ordinance  of  baptism. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  307 

But  with  the  history  of  the  Presbyterian  church, 
we  are  so  well  acquainted,  as  to  be  able  to  affirm, 
that  the  blessing  of  God  has,  to  a  remarkable  extent, 
rested  upon  the  baptized  children.  In  the  revivals 
with  which  this  church  has  been  blessed,  a  large  pro- 
portion of  the  converts,  often  the  great  majority, 
have  been  the  children  of  the  covenant.  The  same 
thing  has  been  true  of  the  conversions  under  the 
regular  ministrations  of  pastors.  We  have  constantly 
witnessed  the  fulfillment  of  the  precious  promise — 
"  I  will  direct  their  work  in  truth,  and  I  will  make 
an  everlasting  covenant  with  them.  And  their  seed 
shall  be  known  among  the  Gentiles,  and  then  off- 
spring among  the  people:  all  that  see  them  shall 
acknowledge  them,  that  they  are  the  seed  which  the 
Lord  hath  blessed.  '>*  Again,  "For  they  are  the  seed 
of  the  blessed  of  the  Lord,  and  then  offspring  with 
them."  f  Still  again,  "  For  I  will  pour  water 
upon  him  that  is  thirsty,  and  floods  upon  the  dry 
ground ;  and  I  will  pour  my  Spirit  upon  thy  seed, 
and  my  blessing  upon  thine  offspring.  And  they 
shall  spring  up  as  among  the  grass,  as  willows  by 
the  water- courses."  J  And  now  the  great  majority 
of  the  most  able  and  efficient  ministers  and  mem- 
bers of  the  Presbyterian  church  are  the  baptized 
children  of  the  church — the  children  of  the  covenant. 

*  Isaiah,  61 :  8,  9.  t  Isaiah,  65  :  23. 

Isaiah,  44 :  3;  4. 


308  IXFAXT  BAPTISM. 

It  is  vain,  then,  for  opposers  of  infant  baptism  to 
declaim  against  it  as  tending  to  corrupt  the  church, 
and  to  fill  it  with  unconverted  members.  The  history 
of  the  Presbyterian  church  in  its  different  branches, 
and  of  every  other  Pedo-baptist  church,  in  which 
infant  baptism  has  been  practiced,  with  the  exceptions 
already  mentioned,  disproves  the  charge,  and  proves 
it  an  unspeakable  blessing. 

6.  Finally,  infant  baptism  offers  strong  consola- 
tion to  pious  parents,  both  in  the  early  death  of  their 
children,  and  when  called  to  die,  and  leave  their 
children  at  an  early  age.  In  the  first  part  of  this 
volume,  on  the  Design  of  Baptism,  I  have  disproved 
the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration,  and  I  utterly 
repudiate  the  doctrine,  held  only  by  the  church  of 
Rome  and  those  of  kindred  faith,  that  any  infants 
are  lost.  Yet  it  is  a  great  consolation  to  sorrowing 
parents,  when  they  weep  over  their  infant  children  sink- 
ing into  the  grave,  to  be  able  to  commit  them  to  the 
hands  of  their  Heavenly  Father,  pleading  the  unfail- 
ing promise  of  his  covenant.  And  when  parents 
are  called  to  leave  their  children  in  this  world  of 
temptation,  of  sin  and  sorrow,  it  is  an  unspeakable 
consolation  to  be  permitted  to  commit  them  to  the 
care  of  Him  who  has  promised  to  be  a  God  to  them 
and  to  their  children.  Again  and  again,  have  we 
witnessed  the  "  strong  consolation"  which  dying 
parents  have  drawn  from  God's  gracious  covenant  in 
behalf  of  their  children.  Who  would  be  willing  to 
be  deprived  of  it  ? 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  309 

These  are  the  principal  advantages  of  infant  bap- 
tism. The  subject  makes  a  strong  appeal  to  pious 
parents.  Two  important  questions  I  desire  to  press 
upon  them,  viz-: 

1.  Have  you  had  your  children  baptized?  I  do 
not  ask,  whether  you  have  had  them  christened. 
I  dislike  the  word.  The  sooner  it  goes  entirely  out 
of  use,  the  better.  But  have  you  had  them  bap- 
tized? In  too  many  instances,  pious  parents  delay 
the  discharge  of  this  duty,  and  quiet  their  con- 
sciences with  trivial  excuses ;  and  then,  if  one  of 
their  children  is  likely  to  die,  they  send  off  in  great 
haste  for  their  pastor  to  administer  the  ordinance. 
All  unnecessary  delay  is  the  neglect  of  an  important 
duty,  and  arises  from  undervaluing  one  of  the  most 
precious  privileges.  It  looks  very  much  like  tramp- 
ling under  foot  God's  gracious  covenant.  If  God 
has  committed  to  you  a  young  immortal,  bound  to 
you  by  the  tenderest  ties,  delay  not  to  give  it  to  him 
in  the  everlasting  covenant,  and  humbly  claim  his 
promised  grace  in  the  momentous  and  difficult 
work  of  training  it  up  in  his  nurture  and  admo- 
nition. 

2.  Are  you  conscientiously  and  faithfully  dis- 
charging the  duties  which  stand  connected  with  the 
baptism  ol  your  children  ?  Too  man}',  it  is  to  be 
feared,  think  little  of  qualifying  themselves  to  dis- 
charge the  sacred  duties  imposed  upon  them  and 
recognized  by  them  in  the  covenant.     There  is  no 


310  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

virtue  in  the  mere  administration  of  an  ordinance. 
It  is  worse  than  useless  to  enter  into  covenant  with 
God,  and  to  have  the  seal  of  that  covenant  applied 
to  our  children,  unless  we  are  careful  to  keep  the 
covenant — to  discharge  the  duties  it  enjoins.  What 
kind  of  example  do  you  set  before  your  children?  Do 
they  see,  in  your  daily  walk,  an  exemplification  of 
the  Christian  spirit?  Do  you  faithfully  instruct 
them  in  the  truths  of  God's  holy  word?  Do  you 
gather  them,  morning  and  evening,  around  the  family 
altar  ?  Or  if  you  are  the  wife  of  an  unconverted 
husband,  or  a  widow,  do  you  pray  with  and  for  your 
children?  Do  you  exercise  over  them  a  firm  and 
affectionate  discipline?  In  a  word,  is  it  your  daily 
prayer  and  effort,  so  far  as  your  instrumentality 
can,  to  make  them  true  and  devoted  disciples  of 
Christ?  Do  they  see  that  you  are  far  more  anxious 
that  they  should  be  disciples  of  Christ,  than  shine  in 
the  fashionable  circles  of  society? — that  you  are 
much  more  concerned  that  they  be  "  rich  in  faith," 
than  that  they  possess  earthly  treasures  ?  Examine 
yourselves  ;  for  God  has,  in  large  part,  committed 
to  you  the  future  happiness  ol  your  children,  in  this 
life  and  in  the  life  to  come.  Your  example  will 
inspire  them  with  respect  for  the  religion  you  pro- 
fess, or  harden  them  against  it.  Your  prayers, 
accompanied  by  faithful  efforts,  will  call  down  the 
blessing  of  God  upon  them  ;  as  your  unfaithfulness 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  311 

will  be  followed  by  bis  judgments.     May  God,  in 
mercy,  help  you  to  be  faithful. 

This  subject  appeals  to  the  officers  of  our  churches. 
Baptized  children  are  placed  under  their  watch  and 
care.  They  are  solemnly  bound  to  see  to  it.  as  far 
as  possible,  that  they  have  suitable  religious  instruc- 
tion— that  they  be  brought  under  the  influence  of  the 
means  of  grace.  It  is  to  be  feared,  that  whilst,  in 
some  respects,  the  children  of  the  church  enjoy  a 
greater  variety  of  religious  instruction,  than  in  pre- 
ceding generations,  there  is  less  care  taken  to  have 
them  taught  in  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel.  One 
of  the  unhappy  consequences  is,  that  they  oftener 
wander  from  the  church  of  their  fathers,  and  are 
carried  away  with  dangerous  error;  and  another  is, 
that  the  piety  of  those  who  remain,  is  of:  a  less 
healthy  and  vigorous  growth.  It  becomes  the  officers 
of  the  churches  to  look  after  the  spiritual  interests  of 
the  children  committed  to  their  oversight. 

This  subject  appeals  to  baptized  children  of  the 
church.  The  seal  of  God's  covenant  of  grace  is 
upon  them.  From  earliest  infancy,  they  have  been 
the  subjects  of  parental  prayers,  and  have  received 
parental  instructions.  They  have  enjoyed  precious 
privileges.  The  parents  who  gave  them  in  covenant- 
to  God,  may  now  be  in  heaven  ;  but  their  prayers 
are  remembered  by  the  God  of  Abraham.  The 
question  now  arises — Will  you  ratify  what  jojai  pious 
parents  have  done  for  you  ?     Or  will  you  thrust  from 


312  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

you  the  blessings  of  the  everlasting  covenant,  and 
thus  incur  aggravated  guilt?  To  trifle  with  that  cove- 
nant made  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  is  no  slight  matter. 
Hasten,  thee,  to  make  your  peace  with  God,  and 
humbly  to  claim  his  precious  promise. 


THE    END. 


